Comments on: Notre Dame: Prestige Above Principle

By: Shane Vander Hart

Shane Vander Hart — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:15:59 +0000

I would suspect several of their commencement speakers haven't embraced that.

By: Argon

Argon — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:19:42 +0000

Understood, but I thought there were multiple 'non-negotiables'. In any case, I don't see Notre Dame's policy on abortion being changed with Obama's visit.

The distracting folderol over Obama's invitation to speak aside, has anyone read the full speech?

By: Shane Vander Hart

Shane Vander Hart — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:07:00 +0000

Thanks for chiming in.

By: ECM

ECM — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:43:46 +0000

Except that abortion, as has been repeatedly asserted by the Vatican, is the one non-negotiable sin out of all Catholic beliefs, period. Nothing else even comes close as has been noted time and time again.

In fact, the Church has even stated that things like the justness of war and the death penalty aren't black and white, non-negotiable, issues as is the case with abortion–anyone with even a hint of knowledge about these issues and the Church would be well aware of this or is merely attempting to obfuscate.

By: Argon

Argon — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:02:21 +0000

Notre Dame doesn't care whether any speaker adheres to Papal Infallibility, although it is church dogma. Relatively few speakers (& none of the non-Catholics) adhere to all church dogma or moral positions. That's the “university” part of Notre Dame. So I disagree that it's a matter of principle vs. prestige. Bush got an honorary degree from the university in 2001 over the objections of Catholics who protested his support of the death penalty while he was Governor of Texas (and as President). Clearly, there are areas of agreement and others of debate for non-Catholic speakers with regard to church dogma and positions.

By: Shane Vander Hart

Shane Vander Hart — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:32:14 +0000

Tried to send a reply to disqus via e-mail, but it is evidently being hinky. If you get a double response later on that is why.

Basically what I said was I'm sure, though I can't state as an absolute fact, that many of their commencement speakers do not hold to papal infallibility. I'd have to be a Catholic to address that further though. I don't know how your average Catholic would feel about that. Perhaps I'll ask Lisa (a regular commenter) to come address that.

By: Argon

Argon — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:32:37 +0000

I hear Obama doesn't accept Papal Infallibility either. What were they thinking?

By: Shane Vander Hart

Shane Vander Hart — Mon, 18 May 2009 10:59:50 +0000

Very true, I know some people who voted for him are now wondering – “what was I thinking?”

2012 won't be a cakewalk for him.

By: Stephen C.

Stephen C. — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:48:29 +0000

Obama's choice record is chilling, to say the least. But there are some reasons, I believe, to be encouraged. As I'm sure you saw earlier this week, a recent Gallup poll identified most Americans as pro life. When Gallup first began their polling on this issue in 1995, only 33% identified themselves as “pro-life.” In under fifteen years, the American public has shifted by nearly twenty percentage points!

As pro-life sentiment grows, it makes it much more likely that pro-life politicians will be elected. And as popular opinion shifts, those considering abortions will be influenced by their friends' and family's pro-life beliefs to abstain from getting abortions. Also, the more popular the pro-life position is the more likely pro-life laws will continue to be passed at both the state level (e.g. mandatory ultrasounds for all considering abortions, etc.) and the Federal level (e.g. banning of partial birth abortions, etc).

If Obama thinks Americans wanted change in 2008, just wait 'til 2012.