Obama at Notre Dame II

A few reflections:

1.  One writer has pointed out that, of all the bishops who have spoken out against the honorary degree for Obama at Notre Dame (remember, this is the issue for them, not the fact that he's invited to be the commencement speaker), not one has shown up at the protests, preferring to hurl invective from the comfort of their chancery offices. 

In some ways I find this to be the most distressing outcome -- the realization that the bishops seem to be willing to outsource their voice on this issue to an angry and hectoring mob.  If this group does not represent them -- surely, it does not -- they need to say so, and loudly.

And, if the 70 or so bishops that have spoken out do not represent the 265 active bishops in the U.S., the 190-odd bishops that have not spoken out need to let us know that, and loudly.

2.  With regard to the Gallup poll mentioned in the update to my last post:  I'm not at all surprised to see the gain in those claiming the pro-life label, along with a rise in the rate of acceptance of same-sex unions -- I've been talking to college students about these issues since the early 90's, and have seen a marked increase in students who both a) claim the label "pro-life," and b) have either a positive acceptance of, or at least a strong tolerance for, gays and lesbians.  Finding these two attitudes in the same person is what seems new.  

Socially, this is a step forward, representing both a more thoughtful, and less ideological, approach to the question of abortion and "choice," AND a greater comfort with same-sex relations.  With regard to gays and lesbians, some of the more nuanced language I see my students using in this area is certainly due, in part, to the general message of tolerance they absorbed in high school.  More likely, this kind of sea-change, on both counts, probably owes more to the culture of acceptance among popular music and television figures.  

What bears notice is that there can be movement on these issues.

3.  Are the bishops, as Amy Sullivan claims HERE, in the curious position of being "more Catholic than the Pope?"  No, they're in the curious position of being American Catholics, as David Gibson explores in his recent reflection HERE.  

Memo to Madame Speaker: Shut up. Please.

For the latest news on this and other issues ad intra, check out Rocco Palmo's blog...

UPDATE: So much for the common-sense approach. On this past weekend’s “Meet the Press” program, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s answers to questions on abortion policy made such a hash out of the issue (I did get the point that she has five kids) that Tom Brokaw just gave up.

It did not help that she claimed that this was a topic to which she has given much thought.

[Personal request: all interlocutors shall henceforth observe a strict moratorium on prefacing this discussion with a list of how many children one does or does not have. We have four. They are fine, thank you. Their existence is evidence only of intermittent sexual relations on the part of their parents; their existence does not, in itself, constitute an argument for their parents’ virtue, political affiliation, or depth of thought (in fact…well, never mind).]

Pelosi’s claim is, more or less, that a) unlike the Church’s claim that “we have always found abortion to be wrong,” some major theologians found it occasionally to be permissible, therefore b) since it’s been a contested issue historically, there really is no right answer. In a follow-up, she repeated her reliance on a quote from Augustine that questions when the soul enters the body.

She’s right in a small way, in her rejection of the tendency of the Church to claim that it floats serenely over the vagaries of human history, perfect in its claim to the fullness of truth. But the larger point is that the facts of this matter are no longer murky, in the age of ultrasound, so to cite the 5th century Augustine is simply silly – does she recommend his views on marriage as well? I’m guessing no.

The bishops are pretty clear in their various responses and – here’s the point – given her stature, and the fact that she garbled the story about the Church's position, they now have to respond. As I explain in the previous post, while people have a variety of responses to the issue of abortion, the issue itself is not a question of a religious truth; the question about the legal status of abortion is a public question about an issue of justice. The Catholic Church's position on this is not based on faith, to oppose the legalization of abortion is not a question of the improper imposition of religion.

But … the question about the fitness to receive communion IS a Catholic question. And now, unfortunately, even those bishops who find it more effective to speak pastorally and persuasively to the faithful in private, who would prefer to have this conversation out of the glare and hype of an election year “wafer watch,” have no choice but to speak out.

And, yes, some will happily politicize the issue, arguing that there is only one political strategy to implement this issue of justice, without regard for how effective any given approach may be. And some will go even further, saying that anyone who does not agree with that political strategy is not in a state of grace and should be barred from communion.

Catholics watching all this from the pews will just get whiplash. Argh.

I do not think that there is a simple correspondance between genuinely converting our culture on the value of all human life, and voting for the party that claims to be “pro-life.” Nor do I think that the bishops are naïve about this. But they are also deeply wary of what they all too often hear from religious progressives in the other party: double-talk that reduces quickly to a very fuzzy sense of the seamless garment – the connection between all life issues – and never seems to directly challenge the corrosive premise of a civil order that permits abortion. They know that they're occasionally (I'd say "often") used by the Republicans. But now they have reason to doubt whether the Democrats are listening...or if they even get it.

Memo to Madame Speaker: Shut up already. I’m begging here.