< Back to front page Text size – +

Obama addresses abortion at Notre Dame

E-mail|Link|Comments (49) Posted by Michael Paulson May 17, 2009 03:45 PM

A few observations on the commencement ceremony now wrapping up at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend:

• President Obama was given an enormously enthusiastic welcome by the crowd. The one time I heard a heckler erupt (I was watching the webcast) he was drowned out by cheers. Obama was repeatedly given ovations and applause.

• The Rev. John I. Jenkins, president of the university, devoted almost the entirety of his introduction to a passionate and forceful defense of the university's decision to invite Obama to give the address, and to grant him an honorary degree. He lamented the tone of the debate, saying to the graduates, "The world you enter today is torn by division – and is fixed on its differences," and that "too often differences lead to pride in self and contempt for others.'' He rued what he said was the demonization of others in American culture, and referred to "hateful divisions" among human beings.

• Jenkins, who has faced criticism from dozens of bishops and hundreds of thousands of lay Catholics for allowing an abortion-rights supporting president to be honored at a Catholic university, praised Obama for agreeing to speak despite the substantive disagreement and the ensuing controversy. Jenkins said, "President Obama has come to Notre Dame, though he knows well that we are fully supportive of Church teaching on the sanctity of human life, and we oppose his policies on abortion and embryonic stem cell research."

Then, he added, "Others might have avoided this venue for that reason, but President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him.'' And Jenkins outlined a series of reasons for honoring Obama, mentioning his positions on education and health care and foreign relations and war, as well as his accomplishment in becoming the first African-American president of the United States.

• Obama spoke for about 31 minutes, drawing repeated applause, even for saying, simply, "I am honored to be here today.'' Then, noting that "I know it has not been without controversy,'' Obama addressed at some length the tension in American culture over the abortion issue. He said that, "Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved." And, on abortion, he outlined a series of steps that he said the two sides should agree on, including reducing the number of women seeking abortions, reducing unintended pregnancies, making adoption more available, and providing "care and support for women who do carry their children to term.'' He also indicated that he is open to "a sensible conscience clause" for health care workers, suggesting that he is open to compromise on that front.

• Obama also said the abortion issue is not likely to go away. "The fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable,'' he said.

• Obama paid striking homage to two Catholic icons, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, who he said he encountered as a community organizer working in Catholic-sponsored groups in Chicago, and the former Notre Dame president, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, who will turn 92 this week, and who Obama praised for his role in the civil rights movement. In turn, Notre Dame gave Obama a framed photograph of Hesburgh and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., holding hands and singing "We Shall Overcome" at a civil rights event.

Here is the full text of Obama's remarks, as released by the White House:

"Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.
Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation.

I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I’m only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that’s better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university’s proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world – Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year’s tournament, a team by the name of “Hallelujah Holla Back.” Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the “Barack O’Ballers” didn’t pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6’2” forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare – periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world – a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations – and a task that you are now called to fulfill.

This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit – an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work.

We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity – diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century – whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease – do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground – recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” – is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man – our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website – an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that – when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do – that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where “…differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago – also with the help of the Catholic Church.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help – to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads – unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts."

My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they’re talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule – the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame – by the last count, upwards of 80% -- have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn’t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens – when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another – all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African-American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the “separate but equal” doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God’s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the twelve resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of the commission. It included five whites and one African-American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. They worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. Finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations on your graduation, may God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America."

(Photo, by John Gress/Reuters, shows Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins greeting President Obama at the university's commencement ceremony today, May 17, 2009.)

« Back to front page

49 comments so far...

It is good that President Obama spoke at Notre Dame, but it is NOT good that he was honored. Notre Dame ignored the instructions of the bishops who said that Catholic institutions should not honor people who contradict basic moral teachings of the Church. Not even A.S.U. gave the president an honorary degree.

President Obama spoke about the civil rights struggle of African-Americans. The biggest civil rights struggle of our time is about the right to life, which is being denied to hundreds of thousands of unborn Americans every year.

Posted by Peter May 17, 09 05:32 PM

I will stand with this President against all who would disparage him. He is enlightened and deserves our loyalty and trust. Their has been none other in my lifetime of 60+ years of whom that I could make this statement. I hope those younger than myself can see the truth this chosen one represents. God has blessed us all.

Posted by dan d May 17, 09 05:45 PM

Let us just agree on one thing .. this dude is gifted when it comes to delivering speeches and conveying ideas. He nails it again and again and again ..... impressive speech.

Posted by RT May 17, 09 05:47 PM

What a lost opportunity for the Judge who spoke after Obama in place of Professor Glendon. Instead of using the speech as an opportunity to speak to a wide audience about the basis for Catholic views on abortion and stem cell research he spent his time attempting to cover the backside of the ND administrators. So much for Obama's presence promoting dialogue. So will ND be pressing charges against Norma McCorvey (the original Roe in Roe v. Wade), who was arrested at ND while protesting Obama? What an irony that would be.

Posted by Kevin831 May 17, 09 05:49 PM

well, maybe Notre Dame should not have granted degrees to those students who engaged in pre-marital sex or used contraception. How about that?

Posted by alice May 17, 09 05:56 PM

I believe there are 477 bishops in the United States but only 74 spoke out against Obama visiting ND. Maybe the majority of bishops recognize that pro-abortion French President Nicholas Sarkozy was made an honorary canon of the Pope Benedict XVI's own Cathedral, the Lateran Basilica by Benedict in 2007!

My understanding is that only 30 or 35 kids by-passed their graduation ceremony today to attend an anti-abortion ceremony at ND today.

Jim Murray

Posted by Jim Murray May 17, 09 06:19 PM

Poster #3, All our presidents are like that.

Posted by stephanie May 17, 09 06:37 PM

Amazing that when conservatives protest Obama, the left considers it unpatriotic and disloyal, but when Bush was president those same liberals proclaimed that "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Posted by buccaneer81 May 17, 09 06:44 PM

All these self-righteous Catholic clergy and congregation members need to take a long, hard look at their practice of re-assigning and covering up for priests who were/are pedophiles.
Hypocrites! How many lives has the Catholic Church destroyed over the centuries in this way?

And what about all the lives lost during the Holocaust because of the complicity of the Catholic Church?

And shall we get into the Inquisition, the Crusades and the "tactics" used by the Catholic Church throughout its history to convert people to its faith?

The Catholic Church has an awful lot of blood on its hands.

Posted by Logan May 17, 09 06:45 PM

@ dan d.... A rather cultish take from you. Rather disturbing. No politician is worthy of such adulation.

Posted by buccaneer81 May 17, 09 06:47 PM

He gave the speech with dignity, intelligence, respect, and honor and agreeing with RT, nailed it!!! For those that chose to protest with the anti=abortion activists rather than stand in line and receive your diploma and participate in a milestone in your life, tells me a lot about where your headed in the future. I am a Christian, but admire our new President and his crusade to bring everyone together whether they agree or not on many issues....I firmly believe he will make a big difference for our country and the world. Let's stand behind him now when we need his leadership and intelligence the most.

Posted by JW May 17, 09 06:54 PM

Poster #7, did you enjoy living on Mars for 2000-2008?

Posted by calmy-2 May 17, 09 07:02 PM

JW said..."For those that chose to protest with the anti=abortion activists rather than stand in line and receive your diploma and participate in a milestone in your life, tells me a lot about where your headed in the future."
They're headed into the future with ethics, beliefs and morality. I think the dissenters will do quite well in life.
Cultish adoration of any politician is disturbing.

Posted by buccaneer81 May 17, 09 07:17 PM

"well, maybe Notre Dame should not have granted degrees to those students who engaged in pre-marital sex or used contraception. How about that?"
Posted by alice May 17, 09 05:56

Well, Alice, I disagree with the point you are making. I do not think ND should have honored President Obama. Letting him speak is one thing (though I'm not sure he should have been selected for commencement speaker), but honoring him is another. As for the students who have sinned, all men have sinned. The issue is not sin; the issue is what do you stand for. No one is perfect. So, I disagree with your point which is to equate the granting of degrees to students who have sinned with honoring the president of the United States who takes an opposing view on the fundamental issue of God's creation of human life.

Posted by Patrick May 17, 09 07:18 PM

@ calmy-2.... I'll take jumbled words and fractured syntax any day over liberal, politically correct readings from a teleprompter.

Posted by buccaneer81 May 17, 09 07:19 PM

Both John Jenkins and Barrack Obama gave excellent speeches.These men both are the kind that are fit to judge this issue and come to some sort of compromise. I doubt that there are very men and a few Catholics who have not spilled seed on the ground in their lives. Maybe they were sorry about it, but so what; that's probably 1 million babes down the drain in just one squirt.

Looking at the real cause of global warming, too many people on the spaceship; I feel that every wasted squirt is a blessing, not a curse.

Posted by Mike May 17, 09 07:33 PM

Eloquence is the tool of obfuscation. Both Father Jenkins and President Obama use that tool very well. If the addresses of Father Jenkins and of President Obama count as dialogue, then Father Jenkins must think that the bishops and right minded Catholics are fools. President Obama refers to doubt as being the great modifier in discussions between people on opposite sides of an issue. How arrogant of him! The doubt he speaks of is a charade. He is part of the crowd that says that because of doubt, the people who oppose abortion must yield to those who don't oppose it. He says that we should work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, etc. yet his policies have done
nothing to make those things happen. On top of that, he speaks untrue theology. His speech writer should be fired. We can know with great certainty what God asks of us. We have Scripture and the Church to guide us. One could write an essay on the falsehoods spoken by both Father Jenkins and President Obama. At the end of the day, nothing has changed. Notre Dame should not have invited the aPresident and he should not have accepted. Father Jenkins should be fired.

Posted by Peter Jensen May 17, 09 07:34 PM

Everyone, including conservatives, have the right to have their opinions respected. President Obama is the elected President of the USA. Although I don't personally like his policies, I will respect him as such, as I would any other who held the office. I don't feel that he did anything wrong by giving the Commencement speech at ND. However, I don' t feel that ND was right in allowing him that platform to vocalize his liberal views to a widely conservative audience. If I were an ND student who worked hard for 4 years to earn my degree, I would not want a liberal Pro-Choice president giving the Commencement Speect on why we should agree to disagree. Pro-Life is one of the fundamentals of being Catholic.

Posted by boycottoxy May 17, 09 07:38 PM

As a confirmed Catholic, the anti-religious minority really needs to find their public voice. Organized religion served it's purpose 2-3000 years ago when society lacked basic tenets such as not killing someone because they tried to steal your neighbor's goat. It was a good expanded 'model' for teaching the golden rule. Over the past 2000 years, man's understanding of the truth in the world through science has made the myth and magic of "God" obsolete. The ultimate goal of the individual followers of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc is to DIE (escape) and end up in some magical place with angels, or virgins, or their supreme daddy taking care of them. In order to get there, they believe they must destroy the world to reach that end. It's just a tad insane - as for abortion being the number 1 moral issue in the world - how many humans are killed in war vs. through abortion? the hypocrisy is stunning and depressing.

Unfortunately, the majority in the world are too easily persuaded.

Posted by Confirmed Catholic (Reformed) May 17, 09 08:04 PM

logan,keep skipping the topic in order to make yourself feel better.
MURDER MURDER MURDER

Posted by PICO22 May 17, 09 08:05 PM

Women have always had abortions and always will - it must remain legal.

The wingnuts are making a HUGE mistake lumping stem cell research and abortion together. YOU DO NO HAVE THE RIGHT TO INHIBIT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH!! This country is not a theocracy.
And why was it okay for GWB to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis FOR NOTHING and fry a couple of people a day in Texas?

Posted by maureen May 17, 09 08:05 PM

"After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website."

That about sums up this man. All superficial words, and very little substance. He stands for 'reaching across the aisle', but only as long as you agree 100%. He'll lie to you and tell you he will consider what you have say... but he never does.

Common ground is agreeing to 'reducing the number' of abortions'??? He really thinks that people that see abortion as the killing of a baby see this as a comprimise?? It's like sayhing "How about common ground in 1865 being reducing the number of slaves instead of emancipation????" You know, that is like common ground - for slave holders!

Posted by Neil May 17, 09 08:24 PM

The Presidents, both of the United States and Notre Dame, were at their best today in handling what some had sought to turn into a quamire of controversy.

They, the student body and their relatives plus all other attendees are to be congratulated on making it a memorable day for themselves and the rest of our country.

Posted by Don Foley May 17, 09 08:31 PM

Both the introductory & President Obama's speeches were extremely good and should serve as a reminder of what God expects from all His people as it relates to how we treat ,love ,respect & truly be each other's keeper.
May God continue to bless & guide President Obama,church & civil leaders

Posted by Barbara Kanhai-Myers May 17, 09 08:52 PM

I feel so sad for all those Roman Catholics and all Christians that actually believe in the sanctity of human life. They have certainly been betrayed by the Catholic Church today. Abortion is an act of a sick and barbaric society against the weakest and most defenseless among us. It is a vicious act of unspeakable cruelty and violence. If the Catholic Church cannot stand for life, then it cannot stand for much.

Posted by Tom from Boston May 17, 09 09:01 PM

Posted by Tom from Boston May 17, 09 09:10 PM

ND did NOT require that ALL students disclose their position on abortion before 'honoring' them with degrees - why should it be different with the President?

ND does NOT make it a requirement for all students, before they are eligible for a ND degree, that they conform in every way to the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church.

THIRD, protesters are actually advocating Prior Restraint, furthering division and trying to stifle open discourse - ND is, first and foremost, and EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and in this country that means adopting a fulsome and healthy atmosphere where ALL ideas are welcome in what should be a 'marketplace of ideas', fostering open discourse for ALL - regardless of Race, Creed, Sexual Preference, etc. etc.

Posted by J.C. May 17, 09 09:14 PM

To #5:

Students getting degrees from Notre Dame and the president getting an honorary one is not comparable.

Students are granted degrees; speakers are honored with them. There is a major difference -- the first group earning their degrees through the required work over four years regardless of their beliefs, and the latter being given a gift of sorts for upholding the moral and academic-minded standards of the college.

Mr. Obama does not necessarily fit the morality of a Catholic institution.

Posted by Gina May 17, 09 10:10 PM

Papists are funny.

Posted by Samurai Jack May 17, 09 10:16 PM

It seems bitterly ironic that Fr. Jenkins' statement and stance quoted above: "The world you enter today is torn by division – and is fixed on its differences," and that "too often differences lead to pride in self and contempt for others" is being used in the demonization of his own Church. Proof of this is clearly exhibited in the comments of our local genius' in 5, 9 19, 21 29 etc... above.

Posted by max percy May 17, 09 10:29 PM

Religious people are funny they love to follow the leader. Over population is a huge problem in this world. God as you know it does not exist. Stop using false ideas and scare tactics to push your foolish agendas.

Posted by Bill Stone May 17, 09 10:32 PM

Notre Dame is a disgrace and an embarassment to the Catholic Church.

Posted by Rotbart May 17, 09 10:40 PM

I think today's protesters would have a lot more credibility if they'd displayed half as much outrage over torture or the loss of life in Iraq than the fact that Obama is their president instead of McCain.

Posted by N. American May 17, 09 11:07 PM

Wonderful, now he has an honorary doctorate to go along with his honorary birth certificate.

Posted by George May 17, 09 11:11 PM

If stem cell research is done responsibly, and can treat serious illness, it almost seems pro-life

Posted by downstairsmike May 17, 09 11:32 PM

I'm an ND alumnus who is frankly surprised at all of negativity coming from these comments.

This is clearly the most politically visible issue since the time I was at ND in the sixties and Father Ted Hesburgh implemented his so-called "fifteen-minute rule" regarding campus demonstrations. The ideal that Hesburgh embraced at that time was respect for individual rights and a community’s right (in this case the university) to determine what was proper behavior within the community. When students challenged the rule by interfering with student interviews the following year, the university suspended a number of students, but eventually let many of the transgressors off the hook,. In the end, 10 students who based their defense solely on moralistic arguments were expelled. Hesburgh refused to allow moral arguments to be conflated with political issues of the time at the expense of basic individual and community rights. Essentially, he staked out a protected space for free expression inside the university, between the dissenters on one side and the all too anxious police and political forces on the other. While he was praised as a hardliner at the time, he refused to be politically cast as such and emphasized that he was simply protecting individual rights within the university.

The current flap over Obama's appearance has different outward markings and undertones, but it’s ironic to me how some of core issues actually parallel Hesburgh’s dilemma. We have an overwhelming sense of community in support of the planned commencement, a strongly felt sense among a smaller group of individuals seeking to limit the will of the broader community, and the conflation of political and moralistic themes. Thankfully, ND had both a strong predecessor and notable precedent to guide them through this issue. Fr. Jenkins probably deserves a little credit as well.

There’s a balance to be had in society between religion and secular thought. How that balance is struck is a very human thing, and should be a highly personal thing, yet the very nature of society brings a social element into the equation. There are no clear rules for establishing that balance other than a collective sense within any community for what promotes social order. Of course, in this instance, there are different communities involved, so that introduces even more ambiguity into the equation.

Because of these limitations, I’m willing to extend a broad range of latitude to anyone whose personal beliefs sincerely differ with the groupthink. Sincerity is a key attribute because it's so easy and popular in today's politics to use the religious vector to deflect the secular vector on tough issues. The religious vector can be overly idealistic and parochial. The secular vector relies more on communal thinking and lacks the strength of a value system. And yet we still need a balance. Not an easy thing to manage in the real world.

I’m not questioning the sincerity of anyone posting comments here. Where I probably differ is that I view Notre Dame as a great secular institution as much as a great religious institution. I think the strength of Notre Dame’s influence in American society is derived from its dual role in the real world. (Notre Dame athletics has always added to this dimension.) ND has always been able to reach across religious boundaries as an institution because it lives and competes and plays an intersectional schedule in many dimensions. It’s why Notre Dame transitioned to a non religious Board of Trustees. It’s why Ted Hesburgh so much protected individual rights on campus and a free expression of ideas in the face of religious issues. It’s might also be why a small, religion-oriented university occasionally (and sadly, less frequently) can still knock off a larger state or secular institution in football. Issues like this one make me realize what I learned at ND and why I valued it. That's also why I'm compelled to weigh in as a Catholic who embraces the grey in this issue.

I'm so proud that Obama spoke at today's commencement. He symbolizes so many of the ideals that my country, my school and my parents embraced. He also differs on a few. Yet, I'm so glad that he was honored.

Cheer, cheer for old Notre Dame.

Posted by johnwm1022 May 17, 09 11:39 PM

To Peter,
Until YOU can give birth or carry a child in your body you should have no say in the matter. Women all over the world are denied a basic right to healthcare and choice because men like you think you know what's right for others. I may personnally never have an abortion but I can not walk in the shoes of a woman who may need to make that choice. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself. Your way of living is not right for everyone, nor is mine. The churches do nothing to offer women in need of an alternative beginning with the lies regarding birth control.

Posted by SoxFaninCali May 17, 09 11:48 PM

Funny, because, presuming you're a supporter of Bush and all things GOP, as a group, the right obfuscates like no others, but without eloquence - hell, without rudimentary English most of the time. Those bishops and their sheep are, in fact, fools, though I doubt Fr. Jenkins sees them that way. And untrue theology? Says who? You know nothing of what God wants, especially if you're getting your ideas from the right wingers your church.

Posted by OnTheLeft May 18, 09 12:25 AM

If all the energy and money that is going into fighting abortion rights were re-directed to helping those in need, this world would be a better place. The inconsistency and hypocrisy of those opposed to abortion and yet opposed to the spending of money by the government on social programs to help prevent pregnancies in the first place, babies born out of wedlock, kids without a strong family, and kids in trouble is mind-boggling. The U.S. has more people in prison on a per capita basis than any other country in the world. The number of innocent kids and adults that get killed by handguns every day is out of control. And yet not a word by the religious leaders on gun control. Why? Neither gun control nor social programs play well with the religious right - the religious leaders will not put their sources of funds at risk. In the end, the real injustice and lack of morality are with those people who condemn anyone that does not agree with their position on abortion instead of working together to help build stronger families that can responsibly provide the love, support and discipline that all kids need.

Posted by Bob Gruhl May 18, 09 12:30 AM

"Wonderful, now he has an honorary doctorate to go along with his honorary birth certificate."
Posted by George May 17, 09 11:11 PM

Another lame, fact-deprived right wing talking point. OK, Georgie, here's a little bit of fact for you. Hawaii was admitted to the Union on July 4, 1960. That's why there are 50 stars on the flag, not 49. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in August, 1961. August 1961 comes after July 1960. So...now see if you can follow this, OK...Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. And...now this may be a bit more complicated...his mother was an American citizen. Try to deal in objective reality here, shall we?

Posted by OnTheLeft May 18, 09 12:31 AM

#35. Thanks for the laugh. I always try to be cheerful when I go to bed, othewise I have nightmares about bo and cafeteria catholics, the both of which are trying to wash the Catholic Church down the tubes.

#35. Read about stem cell research before you post about it. EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research has NOT proven useful. No cures, no remedies for ANY affliction.

ADULT STEM CELLS have been shown to aid in the treatment of Multiple Sclerlosis and other diseases. bo wants to have babies created, then destroyed after their "usefulness" is gone.

Posted by Elaine Suhre May 18, 09 01:57 AM

Notre Shame

President Obama spoke of "reducing unwanted pregnancies," without being more specific. Do you think he was urging the ND kids to be chaste until marriage, or to use artificial birth control, which would be insulting Catholic docrine at it's alleged US home town?

The President said:

"Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved."

First of all, that is called relativism, that the "admirable conviction" of those against embryonic stem cell research is the moral equivalent of a similar putative conviction of parents of a child of juvenile diabetes, which they are not. Of course, I and every human being would grieve and feel compassion with those parents, but that does not lead to the logical conclusion that, ergo, embryonic stem cell research is morally ok; it is not. Thirdly, very sneaky of he Prez. to just say "against stem cell research," when it is known that no one, including the Catholic Church,
is against adult or umbilical cord stem cell research, both of which have had more practical results than embryonic.

If there is one bottom line 'doctrine' of medical ethics, it is 'do not use a person as if it were a thing, especially not for the good of another person.' That is why embryonic stem cell research, while stemming from a warm-heart, to help people,
also derived from a lame brain, it insturmentalizes another human person, the killed embryo, which was 'manufactured' just for this purpose. The end does not justify the means.

Posted by gaudete May 18, 09 08:34 AM

1) Relativism is the belief that any statement, opinion, or judgment is as good as any other. And unless you immediately protect it from its own claims, it undermines itself in an instant. That's why there is no such thing as a relativist.

2) Relativism is what one side of a debate claims when it's run out of intellectual ammunition. "If you oppose me, you're a relativist, because I alone stand for values while you have none!" Hardly; cries of relativism are the antithesis of dialogue, in that they're brazen attempts to end a conversation quickly as possible.

3) There is an unmistakably astroturf quality to the protests at Notre Dame (such as the fact that the median age of the protester seems to be much higher than that of the typical student), which reminds me of a lot of the manufactured outrage of the tea parties.

Not that abortion isn't awful. It is. It's just that it's being used to advance a deliberately political agenda that reduces Catholicism (and the Gospel) to an anti-abortion stance.

4) Since Vatican II, conservative Catholics have been fighting a pitched battle against many of the most prominent Catholic intellectuals, especially theologians and clergy, whose primary threat is to expand and enrich the understanding of what it means to be Catholic.

To this end, conservative US bishops have deliberately associated themselves — and tried to associate the Church — with the Republican party. A uniquely successful element of this strategy to date has been the cultivation of reliable single-issue voters on the question of abortion.

It goes like this: they (conservative bishops in the US) provide the GOP with a loyal group of voters, and in return those bishops get good friends in Washington.

Except that now the party's over.

5) The election of Obama with a majority of the Catholic vote sent shivers down the spine of these conservative Catholics, as it demonstrated the utter failure of the single-issue strategy. Now, more than ever, outrage must be manufactured, lest the Church become more of a big-tent affair and have less to offer the likes of Karl Rove.

6) I wonder where the arch-Catholic protesters were when Bush was given an honorary degree at Notre Dame in 2001. He hadn't yet launched a needless war, nor authorized torture (at least not publicly) but he had put numerous people to death as governor of Texas.

Isn't the Church opposed to the death penalty too? Or are there just some issues more worth protesting over than others?

Posted by a catholic May 18, 09 11:52 AM

Well, once again, Obama shows how his skilled, careful, reasonable oratory is not backed by his actions. We should seek a "religious exclusion clause"? Funny, one already exists, and second, the Freedome of Choice Act that he supports would get RID OF ALL THAT. What an incredible degree of disengenuous on the President's part.

Apparently some protesters inside the hall shouted "Stop killing babies!" to which many more in the hall responded, "Yes, we can!" Could the irony get any greater?

Given this new dialogue the President and Fr. Jenkins are calling for, I'll wait to see if NARAL and Planned Parenthood offer honors to Benedict XVI...I may be waiting a while.

But there was no dialogue at the Golden Dome on Sunday. There was only Fr. Jenkins treating abortion like it's just co-equal among any other issues, like school vouchers or fair trade. And in the process giving the President the chance, on their stage and in the name of all the onlooking students and parents to say I agree to disagree.

Moral incoherence is not the same as thoughtful dialogue, Fr. Jenkins. The Mother for which the university is named is crying over this valley of tears in South Bend.

Posted by Justin May 18, 09 12:25 PM

a catholic -

We have discussed this before... you were once "a thinking Catholic". The difference between abortion and the death penalty and all of the other items you and others cite is that abortion is intrinsically evil, and the relativists seem to ignore that fact and lump it in with everything else. It is apples and murder.

The Church is unequivocal about that. To bad many Catholics want to water that down, and therein lies the problem and relativists and atheists like ontheleft who want to throw it in with everything else.

Posted by KJR May 18, 09 02:25 PM

Dear Mr, Mrs, or Miss a Catholic.

I go to arguably the most Catholic Doctrine following parish in the Archdiocese of Boston. We have a huge pro life following including a pastor who is on the MCFL board of directors. I haven't met any 100% practicing pro life Catholics who look at this issue as anything but what it is murder. To us it's no different then killing a 1 year old out of the womb. Also the Catholic Teaching on the death penalty is it should only been done if the person can not be kept from killing again. In other words the Church is against it. I'm going to assume your familiar with the just war teaching of the Church. Although ontheleft will tell you every peron who is pro life or against abortion is for war, that just aint true. At my parish being actively pro life, mainly through prayer doesn't mean we don't serve the poor and perform other ministry work as well.. So many people can't seem to understand how someone could find the act of abortion evil. I don't get that. I have seen the faces of many individuals the first time they realize that the baby just doesn't dissapear. It's Ok to disagree but to make it sound as if the life of the unborn is a agenda item for those whom are truly against abortion is really turning a blind eye to this horrific procedure. None of my genuine Catholic community are by the way single issue voters. They do however allow their personal relationship with Jesus through prayer and the Church help guide them. I'd have to say I have never met any of these single issue voters. I'd really be curious to hear the names of these many Bishops and Priests whom you obviosuly associate with who are in the bag for any political party.

Peace and Blessings

Posted by proud2bcatholic May 18, 09 02:43 PM

Proud:

Of course good and sincere people can be against abortion. Abortion is awful.

Some of those against abortion express that through their support for criminalizing those who pursue and perform them. Some, like me, do not support such criminalization but express our aversion to abortion in other ways.

Single-issue voters are those — you may have them in your parish as well — who ignore everything and anything a candidate says except what s/he has said and done about abortion.

My fundamental contention is this: anyone who tells you that you are not Catholic unless you support (or oppose) a particular candidate, or unless you vote a certain way on a particular issue (abortion or otherwise) is — knowingly or otherwise — using the Gospel to advance the fortunes of a particular candidate or political party. This, for me, is also reducing the Good News to a political manifesto.

You can Google the names of relevant bishops, priests, and laity as well as I. You've also undoubtedly seen them on TV, heard them on radio, and listened to them in your parish.

Posted by a catholic May 18, 09 04:28 PM

by a Catholic,

Can't find em. please google and provide the names. I believe it's appropriate for the Church to define what She believes to be intrinsically evil but as in every other part of Catholic teaching the truth is taught but it is always up to the individual to make free will decisions. I believe the teachings of the Church are divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. I know in my heart Jesus would never approve of an abortion. Abortion should not be legal anymore then euthanasia or killing a one year old. That must be taught from the pulpit.

Peace and Blessings

Posted by proud2bcatholic May 19, 09 08:27 AM

As a Catholic, I am deeply ashamed. Not that they let him speak, but that they gave him an honorary degree and did not challenge him on his past votes that let infants born alive during botched abortions die and how he supports VERY late term abortion. How can you find middle ground with a man who remains committed to the extreme left of an issue?

Posted by David Fawcett May 20, 09 10:36 AM

You must be logged in to submit a comment.

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

Blogger

Michael Paulson covers religion for The Boston Globe. He shared in the Pulitzer Prize in 2003, won the Mike Berger, Templeton and Supple awards in 2008, and is a four-time winner of the Wilbur Award.
E-mail mpaulson@globe.com.

Articles of Faith on Twitter

Follow GlobePaulson on Twitter

views

Harvey Cox, the Hollis professor of divinity at Harvard University, marks his retirement by asserting a little-used right of his professorship -- to graze a cow in Harvard Yard. Photo, by Barry Chin of the Globe staff, taken on Sept. 10, 2009 in Cambridge, Mass.