Michael Sean Winters: No to Federally Funded Abortion

(Hat tip: The Catholic Key Blog)

Chris and I have both been somewhat critical lately of the writing of America Magazine contributor Michael Sean Winters, so I think we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge Winters for writing something particularly praiseworthy:

To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
Well done!

Pope Benedict XVI meets President Barack Obama

• Official press release the the Vatican published today after Benedict XVI received U.S. President Barack Obama in audience:

  his afternoon, Friday 10 July 2009, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI received in Audience the President of the United States of America, His Excellency Mr. Barack H. Obama. Prior to the Audience, the President met His Eminence Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State, and also His Excellency Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States.
  

  In the course of their cordial exchanges the conversation turned first of all to questions which are in the interests of all and which constitute a great challenge for the future of every nation and for the true progress of peoples, such as the defence and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience.
  

  Reference was also made to immigration with particular attention to the matter of reuniting families.
  

  The meeting focused as well upon matters of international politics, especially in light of the outcome of the G8 Summit. The conversation also dealt with the peace process in the Middle East, on which there was general agreement, and with other regional situations. Certain current issues were then considered, such as dialogue between cultures and religions, the global economic crisis and its ethical implications, food security, development aid especially for Africa and Latin America, and the problem of drug trafficking. Finally, the importance of educating young people everywhere in the value of tolerance was highlighted.

Pope Benedict XVI speaks with U.S. President Barack Obama (R) during their meeting in the pontiff's private library at the Vatican July 10, 2009. Source: Reuters

• In addition to giving Obama a copy of his latest encyclical, the pope also presented a copy of the Vatican document on biomedical ethics, "Dignitas Personae" ("The Dignity of a Person") (Catholic News Agency):

  When presenting the gifts after their 35-minute closed-door meeting, the pope gave Obama a signed, white leather-bound copy of the encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate" ("Charity in Truth"), then indicated the light-green soft-cover instruction on bioethics issued last December by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

  "Oh, what we discussed earlier," said Obama, referring to their closed-door discussions. "I will have some reading to do on the plane."

  Obama was given the instruction to help him better understand the church's position on bioethics, Msgr. Georg Ganswein, papal secretary, told journalists in the pool covering the visit.

  Carl Olson notes:"Some observers, I'm betting, will emphasize that since President Obama is not a Catholic, the gift of Dignitas Personae means little or nothing. That argument, however, is implicitly addressed in the opening of the document". Dignitatis Humanae addresses itself "to the Catholic faithful and to ALL who seek the truth,"

  [drawing] upon the light both of reason and of faith and seeks to set forth an integral vision of man and his vocation, capable of incorporating everything that is good in human activity, as well as in various cultural and religious traditions which not infrequently demonstrate a great reverence for life.

  Michael Denton (For the Greater Glory):

  Kmiec, who has stood up a lot for Obama's embryo stuff, has to be exceptionally embarrassed. That the pope felt the need to hand Obama his document on bioethics says a lot about the claim that Obama & the Vatican are close on these moral issues.
  

  I would also say that seems to put an end to the notion that somehow American bishops & Catholics are over-acting to Obama and the Vatican is preserving a sane pro-Obama stance. I think it's clear that Benedict has some serious problems with Obama's positions.

• "Pope presses Obama on pledge to reduce abortions", John Allen Jr. (National Catholic Reporter):

  When President Barack Obama came calling on Pope Benedict XVI today, the two men enjoyed a “truly cordial” encounter, according to a Vatican spokesperson, but at the same time there was no diplomatic silence from the pontiff about their differences over abortion and other “life issues.”
  

  Not only did Benedict press his pro-life case with his words to the president, but he even found a way to make the point with his gift, offering the president a copy of a recent Vatican document on bioethics. According to a Vatican spokesperson, the pope drew a repetition from Obama of his vow to bring down the actual abortion rate.

• According to the Catholic News Agency, "when President Barack Obama stepped into the pope's private library in the Vatican July 10, he became only the 12th U.S. president to do so."
  

Catholic College Leaders Lobby Bishops to Withdraw 2004 Policy Banning Pro-Abortion Speakers

(Hat tip: Catholic Online)

LifeSiteNews reports:

June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the wake of the Notre Dame commencement scandal, Catholic college leaders representing some of the worst violators of the U.S. bishops’ 2004 ban on honoring public opponents of fundamental Catholic teachings are lobbying the bishops to withdraw their policy.

Yesterday the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), which represents more than 200 Catholic institutions, released its summer 2009 newsletter, including a report on the ACCU’s board of directors meeting last week. The ACCU directors concluded “that it would be desirable for the [U.S. bishops] to withdraw” their 2004 policy, according to the newsletter.

The policy in question is found in the U.S. bishops’ 2004 statement “Catholics in Political Life,” which reads in part:

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The bishops gather today in San Antonio, Texas, for their biannual meeting.

***
“Why is it so hard for Catholic college leaders to understand that a Catholic institution does great harm when it honors or gives speaking platforms to those who work against core Catholic values?” said Patrick J. Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society.

“The more than 367,000 people who signed The Cardinal Newman Society’s online petition and the scores of American bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s honor for pro-abortion President Barack Obama clearly recognize that such actions by Catholic colleges are scandalous.”

The ACCU leadership suggests moreover “that juridical expressions of bishops’ or universities’ responsibilities should be kept to a minimum” in order to maintain a good relationship between the bishops and educators.

Reilly surmised that, in other words, Catholic colleges and universities would prefer that there are no clear rules to govern their conduct. He also pointed out that the statement implies that the educators believe that the bishops, and not college leaders, are responsible for tensions arising from scandalous activities on Catholic campuses.

“Catholic colleges and universities would like all of the privileges of being Catholic, but none of the responsibilities of being high-profile witnesses for the fullness of the Catholic faith,” Reilly said.

Allowing for the possibility that the bishops might not agree to simply eliminate the 2004 ban, but might instead draft a new policy concerning Catholic honors and platforms, the ACCU’s directors proposed that the policy “should acknowledge more clearly the differing roles of campus authorities and bishops.” Reilly said that this phrase appears to be an attempt to get bishops to refrain from commenting on internal decisions at lay-controlled Catholic institutions.

In May, ACCU President Richard Yanikoski told the South Bend Tribune that he saw a “degree of ambiguity” in the bishops’ 2004 policy. He claimed that the Church’s canon lawyers disagree whether the policy applies to speakers or honorees who are not Catholic, regardless of whether those individuals oppose Catholic teaching. Several bishops strongly rejected that same argument when it was made by Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., to defend his decision to honor President Obama.

(emphasis added)

Meanwhile, Archbishop Burke is working in the opposite direction to prevent a repeat of the Notre Dame scandal:

VATICAN CITY, June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Raymond Burke, the highest ranking American prelate in the Vatican has given an interview in a Catholic magazine, in which he says that Notre Dame’s decision to honor President Barack Obama was not only “profoundly shocking,” but also underscores a grave situation requiring action to ensure the incident is never repeated.

Burke is the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court of appeal in the Church next to the Pope, and an outspoken advocate for life and family values. He has made headlines repeatedly for his insistence that ministers of communion should deny the sacrament to publicly and obstinantely pro-abortion individuals, especially politicians. He told the Catholic periodical, Inside the Vatican, that a number of lessons must be taken from Notre Dame’s high-profile conferral of an honorary doctorate on Obama, the most aggressive pro-abortion president in American history.

Burke said that the “betrayal of the Catholic identity of Notre Dame University” grew out of the danger of “pursuing a kind of prestige in the secular world, which leads to a betrayal of the sacred aspect of its work, namely the fidelity to Christ and His teaching.”

“So I think everybody now realizes the gravity of the situation. Also I believe that the whole situation has sensitized more people with regard to the gravity of the practice of procured abortion in our nation, that is, they realize even more how far we have gone away from God’s will for human life,” continued Burke.

“That the premiere Catholic university in the United States would give an honorary doctorate of law to one of the most aggressive pro-abortion politicians in our history is profoundly shocking.”

“Now, we cannot forget what has happened at Notre Dame,” said Burke. “We need to take the measures that are necessary so that this is not repeated in other places. If it could happen at Notre Dame, where else could it happen?”

[More]

(emphasis added)

American Papist Issues Challenge to Left-Leaning Catholics: "No More Claiming US Bishops Are 'Partisan' on Abortion"

Tom Peters has issued a challenge to certain left-leaning Catholics "in the interest of dialogue":

I challenge them to explicitly and totally repudiate the pernicious claim that US Bishops, when they speak about abortion, are engaging in "partisan politics." This same claim is similarly made about American Catholics when they, essentially, mimic the talking points of the US Bishops.

The claim that US Bishops, and those who agree with them, are "partisan" when it comes to abortion is deeply hypocritcal, because such a claim is, itself, a partisan charge made exclusively by liberals.

Tom then goes on to quote L'Osservatore Romano (which the Catholic left has recently taken to treating with magesterial authority) against them:

"Obviously the Holy See and L’Osservatore Romano have been, are and will be fully at the side of the U.S. bishops in their commitment in favor of the inviolability of human life in whatever stage of its existence.

Other interpretations have no foundation, especially those that have wanted to use the newspaper’s articles to make it appear that the teachings of the U.S. episcopate on the inherent evil of abortion were an exercise in partisan politics, supposedly in contrast with a different strategy of the Holy See."

(emphasis added)

So, will the Catholic left now be willing to abandon the claim that the Bishops are acting out of partisan interests or in a partisan manner now that L'OR has put that little calumny to rest?

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

"Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues?" -- A discussion with Robert P. George and Doug Kmiec, moderated by Mary Ann Glendon

(From Catholic University):

A public exchange of views was convened on the topic, “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by ‘Pro-Life” Citizens?” today at Washington, D.C.’s National Press Club, Thursday, May 28, 2009.

Discussing their respective views was Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and the Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, and Douglas Kmiec, Professor of Constitutional Law and Caruso Family Chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University School of Law.

Moderating the exchange was Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former United States Ambassador to the Holy See. The event explored different perspectives on current governmental policy regarding such issues as abortion and embryonic stem cell research and its impact on societal attitudes regarding the respect for human life.

You can watch the video on CUA's website here; or on C-Span here.

The event was 'Twittered' by Thomas Peters (American Papist) in attendance.

An article adapted from George's opening remarks is available from The Public Discourse.

President Obama names theologian Miguel H. Diaz U.S. ambassador to the Vatican

In the same week of his nomination of a Hispanic Catholic for the Supreme Court of the United States, President Obama has finally named Havana-born 45 year old Miguel H. Diaz, an associate professor of theology at St. John's University and the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. Eric Gorski (Associated Press) reports:

President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor

President Barack Obama has nominated federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; if she is confirmed, the New York native of Puerto Rican descent would become the first Hispanic to serve on the high court (Catholic News Service).

A roundup of some reaction, from the Catholic blogging community and elsewhere.

• "Coming soon to a sound-byte near you!" - From Powerline, a list of Sotomayor "talking points" we're likely to hear in the coming days and weeks.
  
• Sotomayor would be sixth Catholic justice a roundup from the Boston Globe's Michael Paulson:

  Judge Sonia Sotomayor has much to distinguish her, but one element of her biography stands out in the world of those interested in religion and the public square: she is Catholic, and, if approved as a Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic on the nine-member court. That is a remarkable accomplishment for American Catholics, who make up 23 percent of the nation's population, and will now potentially hold 67 percent of the high court's seats. Two of the justices are Jewish; the resignation of Justice David Souter, who is an Episcopalian, will leave, amazingly given the history of this nation, just one Protestant on the Supreme Court, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens.
  

  Undoubtedly, Sotomayor's Catholic-ness will be the subject of some debate. Just how Catholic is she? ...

  
  
• Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis) muses Am I engaging in wishful thinking, or do I see some possible hope in this nomination?:

  In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the "Mexico City Policy" which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".

  
  
• Feddie (Southern Appeal) wonders, Whither Catholic bashing? and thinks she's the "best of the worst":

  My take on the appointment? She’s the best of the worst. Judge Sotomayor will almost certainly be a reliably liberal vote on the hot-button social issues, but she’s not going to play a leading role in shaping the jurisprudence of the Court (like Judge Diane Wood almost certainly would have done). She’s a political pick, plain and simple. I think the GOP would be wise not to waste too much political capital (assuming it has any left) on opposing this appointment. Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, and strongly opposing her will only further alienate Hispanic voters. This is not to say that I don’t think we should expose her for the penumbra lover and radical that she is. Indeed, I am all for it. But the bottom line for me is that the folks waiting on President Obama’s on-deck circle are far, far worse. Think of it like a professional wrestling match: Let’s get in a few blows, and then let Obama have his pick. There are hills to die on, and this seat isn’t one of them (especially given the dems’ fillibuster-proof advantage in the Senate).

  Jay Anderson agrees, and takes issue with the knee-jerk reaction some elements of the pro-life movement:

  Granted, I am of the opinion that, absent very extreme circumstances, a President is entitled to the Supreme Court nominees of his choice ... especially with his first pick, so I recognize that I'm probably more tolerant of this pick than your average pro-lifer may be.
  

  
  That said, I'm thoroughly disgusted by the reaction of pro-life groups and many other conservatives to this nomination. They've wasted no time before engaging in knee-jerk condemnation of Judge Sotomayor without, I'd wager, spending more than a minimal amount of time reviewing her record. As I noted in an update to my previous post, "I'm beginning to think that certain pro-life organizations already had their anti-nominee press releases ready to go this morning when Obama made his Supreme Court announcement, and that they just filled in the blank once they learned the name."

  
  
• Paul Zummo (CrankyCon) responds:

  I don’t necessarily agree that Republicans and conservatives should quietly let her take her seat. We’re not going to defeat her, and in no way should we attempt a filibuster. But I don’t think we should let her pass unanimously. The Supreme Court has been an issue that has helped more than hurt the GOP, and it would be folly to give up the moral high ground. It would be difficult to make the case three years hence that Obama’s Supreme Court picks were too radical if you happened to have voted for them. There’s a lot of concern about being portrayed as anti-Hispanic by opposing her, but as Annakin said at the end of Return of the Jedi, it’s too late for that.
  

  So be tough dring the confirmation hearings. Ask her difficult questions, and certainly vote against confirmation if you think she should not be on the Supreme Court. Just don’t raise too much of a fuss in doing all that.

  
  
• Michael Goldfarb's advice is similar to that from my legal-minded colleagues -- we could have had much worse, and it would behoove conservatives not to make :

  If there is an upside here for conservatives, Yoo has zeroed in on it: Sotomayor is not going to be a rallying point for the left, and she is not going to persuade anyone on the right. She will, presumably, be a reliable liberal vote -- nothing more, nothing less. Conservatives could have done much worse, but we're getting a liberal Harriet Miers instead of a liberal Alito. The real danger for conservatives is that Sotomayor becomes a Hispanic icon who's seen as being unfairly maligned by Republicans. That could further alienate Hispanics from the party and do lasting damage to the conservative revolution in ways that Sotomayor herself never could.

  
  
• "Conservative groups know they want to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor — but exactly how that campaign will be conducted is a major unanswered question that is splitting the Republican right." -- POLITICO
  

Update

• There is a Sotomayor quote floating around:

  “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

  and when I heard it I admit I was troubled at first -- but Rod Dreher (CrunchyCon) places it in proper context.
  

What does President Obama mean when he asks us to 'work through" our conflicts?

For consideration: an excerpt from President Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame:

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 an 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 -- 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, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

I've been thinking about the President's words.

A soldier and a lawyer may disagree over this or that aspect of U.S. foreign policy. (Measures taken "to protect the country from harm" are presumably acceptable to the extent that they are in conformity with what is typically referred to as the just war tradition or in secular terms the "laws of war.") There is little disputing that both can be motivated by a patriotic love of their country.

Responding to the horrors of HIV / AIDS, the evangelical pastor might counsel abstinence; the gay activist the distribution of condoms. That both are motivated by a desire to curb an epidemic is understandable; howbeit so long as they differ over the sanctity of marriage and the purpose of sexuality, we can expect little chance for "unity."

Lastly, we can emphathize with the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes and their desire to relieve pain and suffering. What is this, but the natural instinct of every parent?

And yet, I really have to wonder what does Obama's "common effort" really amount to?

Is he so naive as to expect that our empathy for the other's situation will compel us to muzzle our moral protest against the evil of utilitarian experimentation upon human embroyos?

The willfull murder of a child in the womb? or smothering the last breath out of the result of a botched abortion?

What does our President mean when from the pulpit of Notre Dame he asks us to "work through" such conflicts?

What does this actually amount to, except "can't we all just get along" -- in spite of, or at the expense of, our principles and convictions?

Our President wants us to be "firm in our principles" -- but it seems to me that he has not seriously grappled with the implications of the Church's teaching that

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."

Archbishop Chaput on Jenkins, Obama and Notre Dame

"Archbishop Chaput on Notre Dame and the issues that remain" - Statement of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. May 18, 2009:

"I have found that even among those who did not go to Notre Dame, even among those who do not share the Catholic faith, there is a special expectation, a special hope, for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world."

~ Reverend John Jenkins, C.S.C., May 17, 2009

Most graduation speeches are a mix of piety and optimism designed to ease students smoothly into real life. The best have humor. Some genuinely inspire. But only a rare few manage to be pious, optimistic, evasive, sad and damaging all at the same time. Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., Notre Dame’s president, is a man of substantial intellect and ability. This makes his introductory comments to President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement speech on May 17 all the more embarrassing.

Let’s remember that the debate over President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame was never about whether he is a good or bad man. The president is clearly a sincere and able man. By his own words, religion has had a major influence in his life. We owe him the respect Scripture calls us to show all public officials. We have a duty to pray for his wisdom and for the success of his service to the common good -- insofar as it is guided by right moral reasoning.

We also have the duty to oppose him when he’s wrong on foundational issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research and similar matters. And we also have the duty to avoid prostituting our Catholic identity by appeals to phony dialogue that mask an abdication of our moral witness. Notre Dame did not merely invite the president to speak at its commencement. It also conferred an unnecessary and unearned honorary law degree on a man committed to upholding one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history: Roe v. Wade.

In doing so, Notre Dame ignored the U.S. bishops’ guidance in their 2004 statement, Catholics in Political Life. It ignored the concerns of Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Notre Dame’s 2009 Laetare Medal honoree – who, unlike the president, certainly did deserve her award, but finally declined it in frustration with the university’s action. It ignored appeals from the university’s local bishop, the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, more than 70 other bishops, many thousands of Notre Dame alumni and hundreds of thousands of other American Catholics. Even here in Colorado, I’ve heard from too many to count.

There was no excuse – none, except intellectual vanity – for the university to persist in its course. And Father Jenkins compounded a bad original decision with evasive and disingenuous explanations to subsequently justify it.

These are hard words, but they’re deserved precisely because of Father Jenkins’ own remarks on May 17: Until now, American Catholics have indeed had “a special expectation, a special hope for what Notre Dame can accomplish in the world.” For many faithful Catholics – and not just a “small but vocal group” described with such inexcusable disdain and ignorance in journals like Time magazine -- that changed Sunday.

The May 17 events do have some fitting irony, though. Almost exactly 25 years ago, Notre Dame provided the forum for Gov. Mario Cuomo to outline the “Catholic” case for “pro-choice” public service. At the time, Cuomo’s speech was hailed in the media as a masterpiece of American Catholic legal and moral reasoning. In retrospect, it’s clearly adroit. It’s also, just as clearly, an illogical and intellectually shabby exercise in the manufacture of excuses. Father Jenkins’ explanations, and President Obama’s honorary degree, are a fitting national bookend to a quarter century of softening Catholic witness in Catholic higher education. Together, they’ve given the next generation of Catholic leadership all the excuses they need to baptize their personal conveniences and ignore what it really demands to be “Catholic” in the public square.

Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George has suggested that Notre Dame “didn’t understand” what it means to be Catholic before these events began. He's correct, and Notre Dame is hardly alone in its institutional confusion. That's the heart of the matter. Notre Dame’s leadership has done a real disservice to the Church, and now seeks to ride out the criticism by treating it as an expression of fringe anger. But the damage remains, and Notre Dame’s critics are right. The most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist – by their words, actions and financial support – that institutions claiming to be “Catholic” actually live the faith with courage and consistency. If that happens, Notre Dame’s failure may yet do some unintended good.

Bishop D'Arcy Publicly Corrects President Jenkins' "Flawed Justification for His Actions"

“I consider it now settled,” writes Bishop D’Arcy, “that the USCCB document, ‘Catholics in Public Life,’ does indeed apply in this matter.”

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recently, Father John Jenkins, CSC, in a letter of response to Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, who had written him, critical of the decision to invite President Obama to speak and receive an honorary degree of law at Notre Dame, indicated that it was his conviction that the statement “Catholics in Political Life” (USCCB) did not apply in this matter. Father Jenkins kindly sent me a copy of his letter, and also at a later meeting, asked for a response.

In an April 15th letter to Father Jenkins, I responded to his letter.

Now the points made in his letter have been sent by Father Jenkins to the members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and have been publicized nationally, as well as locally in the South Bend Tribune. Since the matter is now public, it is my duty as the bishop of this diocese to respond and correct. I take up this responsibility with some sadness, but also with the conviction that if I did not do so, I would be remiss in my pastoral responsibility.

Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.

1. The meaning of the sentence in the USCCB document relative to Catholic institutions is clear. It places the responsibility on those institutions, and indeed, on the Catholic community itself.

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” — “Catholics in Political Life,” USCCB.

2. When there is a doubt concerning the meaning of a document of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where does one find the authentic interpretation? A fundamental, canonical and theological principal states that it is found in the local bishop, who is the teacher and lawgiver in his diocese. — Canon 330, 375 §§ 1 & 2; 380; 381 § 1; 391 § 1; 392, & 394 §1.

3. I informed Father Jenkins that if there was any genuine questions or doubt about the meaning of the relevant sentence in the conference’s document, any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ’s church had the responsibility to inform Father Jenkins of the fundamental principle that the diocesan bishop alone bears the responsibility to provide an authoritative interpretation.

4. I reminded Father Jenkins that he indicated that he consulted presidents of other Catholic universities, and at least indirectly, consulted other bishops, since he asked those presidents to share with him those judgments of their own bishops. However, he chose not to consult his own bishop who, as I made clear, is the teacher and lawgiver in his own diocese. I reminded Father Jenkins that I was not informed of the invitation until after it was accepted by the president. I mentioned again that it is at the heart of the diocesan bishop’s pastoral responsibility to teach as revealed in sacred Scripture and the tradition. (“Lumen Gentium,” 20; and “Christus Dominus,” 2.) I reminded him that it is also central to the university’s relationship to the church. (“Ex corde ecclesiae,” 27 & 28; Gen. Norm., Art. 5, §§ 1-3.)

5. Another key point. In his letter to Bishop Olmsted and in the widespread publicity, which has taken place as the points in the letter have been made public, Father Jenkins declared the invitation to President Obama does not “suggest support” for his actions, because he has expressed and continues to express disagreement with him on issues surrounding protection of life. I wrote that the outpouring of hundreds of thousands who are shocked by the invitation clearly demonstrates, that this invitation has, in fact, scandalized many Catholics and other people of goodwill. In my office alone, there have been over 3,300 messages of shock, dismay and outrage, and they are still coming in. It seems that the action in itself speaks so loudly that people have not been able to hear the words of Father Jenkins, and indeed, the action has suggested approval to many.

In the publicity surrounding the points Father Jenkins has made, he also says he is “following the document of the bishops” by “laying a basis for engagement with the president on this issue.” I indicated that I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama.

6. As I have said in a recent interview and which I have said to Father Jenkins, it would be one thing to bring the president here for a discussion on healthcare or immigration, and no person of goodwill could rightly oppose this. We have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born.

In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.

I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter.

The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.

That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue.

I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.

Sincerely yours in our Lord,
Most Reverend
John M. D’Arcy

(emphasis added)


UPDATE
Tom Peters provides analysis at American Papist.


UPDATE #2 (23 April 2009)
Additional analysis by Fr. Z. (Hat tip: Don McClarey at The American Catholic)

President Obama Names Pope-Basher to Faith-Based Initiative Board

From Cybercast News Service:

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama has named to the federal government’s faith-based initiative a gay-rights activist who, last month, described Pope Benedict XVI and certain Catholic bishops as “discredited leaders” because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Harry Knox, who is a newly appointed member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual activist group.

In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008.

Knox told CNSNews.com that he “absolutely” stands by his criticism of the pope.

"The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use," Knox said on Monday, Apr. 6. "We are eager to help him do that. Until he is willing to do that and able, he's doing a great deal more harm than good -- not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people's lives.”

[More]

(emphasis added)

Doug Kmiec debates George Weigel over Notre Dame

... in the Chicago Tribune:

• "Notre Dame's common ground", by Doug Kmiec.
• "The university's egregious error", by George Weigel.

I have to say, Kmiec suprises me in the lengths he will go to spin Obama's position on abortion:

... the Catholic Church is the foremost defender of unborn life, and properly, uncompromising about it. Obama is more pragmatic, accommodating other religious and scientific views that see the origin point of life differently.

The last time I checked, there was little scientific dispute about what happens upon fertilization. The result of conception is a human life (how could it be anything other?)

Weigel in rebuttal:

It is important to remember, however, that the Catholic defense of the right to life is not a matter of arcane or esoteric Catholic doctrine: You don't have to believe in the primacy of the pope, in seven sacraments, in Mary's assumption into heaven, in the divine and human natures of Christ—you don't even have to believe in God—to take seriously the Catholic claim that innocent human life has an inalienable dignity and value that demands the protection of the laws. For that claim is not a uniquely Catholic claim; it reflects a first principle of justice that anyone can grasp, irrespective of their religious convictions or lack thereof.

Obama and Notre Dame

• Deconstructing Notre Dame Spokesman's Comments on the Obama speech and honorary doctorate, by Dr. Francis Beckwith (Return to Rome). March 25, 2009.
  

• The Notre Dame Commencement, by Fr. James V. Schall. Catholic World Report:

  I cannot think of a single act—one so simple, so innocent, so effective—that serves to do exactly what he needs to have done, namely, plunge an arrow into the heart of Catholicism’s opposition to him, what there is of it.

• Notre Dame's Faustian Bargain, by Stephen Barr. First Things March 24, 2009:

  How can an institution that purports to be Catholic honor as a “doctor of law”—literally a “teacher of law”—a President who has made it very clear by word and deed that he intends to remove from the laws of this nation anything that defends unborn human life?

• Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ has weighed in, describing [ND President] Fr. Jenkins' invitation to Obama a "public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States"; praying "that you come to see the grave mistake of your decision, and the way it undercuts the Church's proclamation of the Gospel of Life in our day."
  

• Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute pens an open letter to Rev. Jenkins: "Father, I have no degree or awards from Notre Dame to return to you to indicate how strongly I feel about this scandalous decision. So here is what I have decided to do ..."
  

• Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin has issued a statement on Notre Dame, concluding that

  In my opinion, it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support.

• Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston has also responded:

  ... Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a “Teacher,” in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.

• More than 170,000 200,000 individuals have signed the Cardinal Newman Society's petition opposing Notre Dame's decision.
  

President Obama invited to give commencement address at Notre Dame; Catholics respond to the scandal

President Obama will be giving three commencement speeches this May -- one of which is at the Catholic[?] University of Notre Dame.

The Cardinal Newman Society (justifiably) has launched a website and petition in protest:

This nation has many thousands of accomplished leaders in the Catholic Church, in business, in law, in education, in politics, in medicine, in social services, and in many other fields who would be far more appropriate choices to receive such an honor from the University of Notre Dame.

Instead Notre Dame has chosen prestige over principles, popularity over morality. Whatever may be President Obama’s admirable qualities, this honor comes on the heels of some of the most anti-life actions of any American president, including expanding federal funding for abortions and inviting taxpayer-funded research on stem cells from human embryos.

The honor also comes amid great concern among Catholics nationwide about President Obama’s future impact on American society, the family, and the Catholic Church on issues such as traditional marriage, conscience protections for Catholic doctors and nurses, and expansion of abortion “rights.”

Taking issue with the decision, some students at Notre Dame have issued a challenge to Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., President of the University of Notre Dame:

There has been overreaction on both sides, and it is important to keep the discussion civil - Uninviting Pres. Obama would be a disrespectful move, and having students turn their back on his speech, as some have called for, would be an immature gesture. As the preeminent Catholic university in America, we have an obligation to respect the office of the President of the United States, and his visit to our beloved campus can serve as the impetus for increased discussion about the role of Catholicism in the public square.

But the University should also use Pres. Obama's visit as an opportunity to reiterate its commitment to the teachings of the Church and the sanctity of life. We ask that you consider making a public statement, if not at the Commencement exercises themselves then in a highly visible public forum, distancing yourself and the University from his views, making it clear that the University disagrees in no uncertain terms with his views on the unborn, which stand in contrast to that of the Church's stance of protecting the most defenseless and voiceless among us. Awarding him an honorary degree without making clear that the University disapproves of his stance on issues regarding the sanctity of human life would be a disrespect to those students who, like ourselves, chose to attend this University based not only on its status as one of the country's premier institutions of higher learning, but a school that takes pride in its Catholic foundation and identity.

M.Z., blogging at Vox Nova, sniffs in dismissal:

To the perpetually offended: grow up already. Really.

Personally, I'd like to call to mind the admonition of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' in Catholics in Political Life:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted: "President Obama is forcing all American taxpayers to pay for this homicidal research"

The Bishop of Phoenix in Arizona has written a straight-talking column responding to President Barack Obama's executive order providing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research LifeSitenews.com reports:

"This means that American taxpayers will now be paying for the killing of human beings at a very early stage in their lives (as embryos), so that scientific research can make use of them for experiments that may or may not yield positive results," writes Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted in his diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Sun.

Unwilling to sugar-coat the reality with polite euphemisms, Bishop Olmsted says, "We U.S. taxpayers will now be forced to pay, whether we wish to or not, for the killing of our youngest brothers and sisters on the dubious hypothesis that their murders might, in the future, benefit others."

"What President Obama is doing is forcing all American taxpayers to pay for this homicidal research," he said.

Read the full text of Bishop Olmsted's column: "What should science trump?" in the Catholic Sun March 10, 2009.

Obama overturns Bush administration's limition on embryonic stem stell research; REVOKES funding for ethical research into 'pluripotent' stem cells

Today, President Obama lifted the Bush administration's limits on embryonic stem cell research:

The president on Monday signaled a clear shift in tone from the Bush administration on a broad range of scientific issues.

Obama overturned an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.

Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Those siding with Bush say scientific advances allow researchers to conduct groundbreaking research without destroying human embryos.

House Republicans have rallied in opposition to the order, including Catholic House Republican Leader John Boehner:

"This decision runs counter to President Obama's promise to be a president for all Americans. For a third time in his young presidency, the President has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us. I fully support stem cell research, but I draw the line at taxpayer-funded research that requires the destruction of human embryos, and millions of Americans feel similarly. As we move forward, I am hopeful that the President will re-evaluate this and other controversial decisions that put government at odds with the sanctity of human life. Non-embryonic stem cell research is not only showing great promise in the laboratory, but its applications are already being used to treat scores of diseases and medical conditions. Indeed, science and respect for human life can coexist. Politicians in Washington would be well-served to recognize this fact before they ask taxpayers to subsidize the destruction of innocent human life simply to advance a particular agenda. Instead of asking taxpayers to pay for efforts that destroy life, Congress and the Administration should support bipartisan solutions like Rep. Randy Forbes' Patients First Act, which would promote stem cell research that is actually getting results."

and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"The administration's announcement on embryonic stem cell research represents a troubling shift in U.S. policy. With this announcement, the government is, for the first time, incentivizing the creation and destruction of human embryos at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. I support biomedical research and I believe the administration would be far better served by directing taxpayer funds to research on non-embryonic stem cells, which is both effective and ethical."

Joined by "Snowflake families" (children, who were formerly stored embryos and their parents), Representative Chris H. Smith stated that:

President Obama has chosen to turn back the clock, and starting today, will force taxpayers to subsidize the unethical, the unworkable over what works, and hype and hyperbole over hope. ...

Assertions that leftover embroyos are better off dead so that their stem cells can be derived is dehumanizing and cheapens human life. There is no such thing as leftover human life. Ask the snowflake children -- cryogenically frozen embroyos who were adopted -- their lives are precious and priceless.

(Click here to read Rep. Smith's full statement on Obama's stem cell order).

In 2005, Rep. Smith introduced the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005 to provide for the collection and maintenance of human [umbelical] cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research.

The Democrats for Life also issued a forceful denunciation of Obama's decision:

DFLA has had a productive relationship both with the campaign and the early stages of the new Administration. To have no opportunity to weigh in on this controversial issue signals a cooling of our relations. DFLA is against President Obama’s decision, period. There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate. While we have zero confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing with pro-life Democrats.

* * *
Update! As First Things' Wesley J. Smith points out, "We all know that President Obama rescinded the Bush funding restrictions for ESCR. But that isn’t all he did today. He also rescinded Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007.":

The Administration didn’t publicize this part of the President’s nasty work, but the now dead 2007 Bush order explicitly required funding for “alternative methods” of stem cell research—such as the new induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSC), a process that changes skin or other cells such as hair follicles into pluripotent stem cells without making or destroying embryos. IPSCs offer so much promise—and all without the ethical contentiousness of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, these alternative methods are one of the few areas in which people who are pro-life and pro-choice, conservative and liberal, pro and anti-ESCR can agree upon, the very type of policy that this president said he wanted to pursue.

Relevant Reading

• Only a week ago it was reported by the Washington Post that "Scientists have developed what appears to be a safer way to create a promising alternative to embryonic stem cells, boosting hopes that such cells could sidestep the moral and political quagmire that has hindered the development of a new generation of cures."
  
• Executive Order on Embryonic Stem Cells 'A Sad Victory of Politics over Science and Ethics,' Says Cardinal Rigali United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. March 9, 2009.
  
• Perpetuating a Needless Stem-Cell War: Obama's decision is bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics, by Ryan T. Anderson. Weekly Standard March 9, 2009.
  
• Obama’s False Choice: What the president could stand to learn from his predecessor on science policy, by Yuval Levin. National Review March 9, 2009.
  
• Stem Cells: A Political History, by Joseph Bottum and Ryan T. Anderson. First Things November 2008.
  
• The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research: Taxpayers have a right to be left out of it, by Robert P. George and Eric Cohen. Wall Street Journal March 10, 2009.
  

Obama Administration moves to overturn Bush's 'Conscience rule'

The Washington Post brings word that the Bush Administration's 'conscience' rule on abortions will likely be rescinded by the Obama administration:

The administration's plans, revealed quietly with a terse posting on a federal Web site, unleashed a flood of heated reaction, with supporters praising the proposal as a crucial victory for women's health and reproductive rights, and opponents condemning it as a devastating setback for freedom of religion. [...]

Administration officials stressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of public comment, which could result in a compromise. They said they remain committed to seeking a middle ground but acknowledged that will not always be possible.

"We recognize we are not going to be able to agree on every issue," said an administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the process has just begun. "But there remains a substantive area of common ground, and we continue to believe we can make progress and will make progress." [...]

The debate centers on a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities that do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life and U.S. Catholic Bishops respond to Obama's repeal of the Mexico City Policy

The Associated Press reports that the Vatican has responded to Obama's repeal of the Bush Administration's "Mexico City Policy", ending a ban on federal funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on them:

Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, urged Obama to listen to all voices in America without "the arrogance of those who, being in power, believe they can decide of life and death."

Fisichella said in an interview published Saturday in Corriere della Sera that "if this is one of President Obama's first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we're heading quickly toward disappointment."

Obama signed an executive order that ended the ban on Friday, reversing the policy of the Bush administration.

"This deals a harsh blow not only to us Catholics but to all the people across the world who fight against the slaughter of innocents that is carried out with the abortion," another top official with the Academy for Life, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, told the ANSA news agency.

"Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst," he was quoted as saying Saturday.

See also: President Obama's Reversal of Mexico City Policy 'Very Disappointing,'
Says Pro-Life Committee Chair Justin Rigali United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. January 23, 2009.

Update

• The Vatican Slams Obama over Abortion, by Jeff Israely. Time January 26, 2009.
  

Obama overturns the Mexico City Policy

Yesterday, a number of websites had reported that Obama's first executive order would be the reversal of the Mexico City policy, in keeping with precedents set by prior Democratic Presidents. CNN News had previously reported that:

The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.

The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.

The same news being echoed by FoxNews.com and LifeSiteNews.com. (Yours truly jumped the gun in reporting this news as well, thus meriting the harsh censure of a blogger at Vox Nova impassioned by a concern for journalistic accuracy).

Fortunately, this does not (yet) appear to be the case, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network:

The Brody File has learned that President Obama WILL NOT issue an executive order today that would have reversed a Bush administration policy which bans federal money by non-governmental agencies that provide abortions overseas. It’s called the Mexico City Policy. Go to the end of this blog to read more from White House Producer Laura Kraus on this policy.

A source with knowledge of the situation says the fact that Obama will not issue this executive order today (on the same day of the huge March for Life rally in DC) sends a strong signal to religious leaders across the political spectrum that President Obama wants to set a different tone in Washington.

President Reagan first implemented the policy but President Clinton reversed it on this day of January 22, 1993. January 22nd is the annual March for Life rally. President Bush then reversed Clinton’s executive order on this on January 22, 2001.

Catholics in the Public Square will keep you posted as events develop.

Update

• Amid protests, Obama backs 'right to choose' on Roe anniversary CNN.com. January 23, 2009:

  President Obama affirmed his support for a woman's "right to choose" on Thursday, the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that led to the legalization of abortion, as thousands of anti-abortion activists descended on the National Mall to challenge his position.
  

  Roe v. Wade "not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters," Obama said in a statement.

  
  
• Obama bides time on abortion measure Politico claims:

  [H]e’s planning to do it Friday – and aides suggest he’s choosing a different kind of symbolism, to show that he’s not always going to do the usual Washington thing, even though his staunch supporters in the abortion rights community were pressing him to do it quickly.

  
  
• According to the Wall Street Post, Obama postponed the order out of sensitivity:

  By holding off on the policy change, the president hoped to divorce the question of family-planning funding from the frenzied and highly charged emotions surrounding the Roe anniversary, according to two people familiar with his thinking.
  

  That's a respectful move, said the Rev. Joel Hunter, pastor of Northland Church, outside Orlando, Fla., an abortion opponent who has tried to expand the evangelical agenda.
  

  "I really do appreciate their sensitivity to this day and this issue," he said. "To do it [the policy change] on a day that pro-life people see as a day of grief, and a day of a really hurtful decision, would be, I think, very insensitive. And that's not who I think President Obama is or would mean to be."

  How touching! -- We have a sensitive President!
  

  
  

• On Friday, January 23rd, Reuters reported that "U.S. President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on Friday on U.S. government funding for clinics or groups which provide abortion services or counseling for the procedure overseas".
  

Pope Benedict XVI congratulates President Barack Obama; Cardinal George proposes "an agenda for dialogue and action"

Text of Pope Benedict XVI's telegram to the 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama:

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, D.C.

On the occasion of your inauguration as the Forty-fourth president of the United States of America I offer cordial good wishes, together with the assurance of my prayers that the Almighty God will grant you unfailing wisdom and strength in the exercise of your high responsibilities.

Under your leadership may the American people continue to find in their impressive religious and political heritage the spiritual values and ethical principles needed to cooperate in the building of a truly just and free society, marked by respect for the dignity, equality and rights of each of its members, especially the poor, the outcast and those who have no voice.

At a time when so many of our brothers and sisters throughout the world yearn for liberation from the scourge of poverty, hunger and violence, I pray that you will be confirmed in your resolve to promote understanding, cooperation and peace among the nations, so that all may share in the banquet of life which God wills to set for the whole human family (cf. Isaiah 25:6-7). Upon you and your family, and upon all the American people, I willingly invoke the Lord's blessings of joy and peace.

* * *

In addition, here is the text of the message Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. episcopal conference, sent to President Barack Obama last week, proposing "an agenda for dialogue and action" and "to offer a constructive and principled contribution to national discussion over the values and policies that will shape our nation's future."