A "Sell Out" at Notre Dame

My observations on the Obama Notre Dame visit:

Obama deserves no criticism by accepting the invitation and his "honorary" degree. He spoke in his usual lofty tones which contained nothing new, just his standard liberal rhetoric. His media boosters were quick to extol his fearlessness at flying into the teeth of a storm. B.S.! Obama accepted because he saw it for exactly what it was, a gift; a chance to walk his agenda right through the front gate of his opponent's fortress, and be given "the floor" to say whatever he wanted to say. I can picture how he must have smiled to himself the day he got the call. What an opportunity! But in the end, this is what Obama does, and those are his views, so you can't knock Obama from being Obama.

Fr. Jenkins though, is a different story.

Fr. Jenkins was way out of line in issuing the invitation. This was not a matter of inviting (and honoring) a speaker who has pushed some trivial and benign agenda that may not be in line with the university's. What he did was to invite the most divisive president ever elected, with one of the most divisive topics at the very center. It's incredibly divisive because of what this university is supposed to be versus what Obama is. Obama does not just lean towards the "pro-choice" side of the argument. In fact, his voting record demonstrates his support for the most radical of abortion legislation.

So what is the reasoning behind Fr. Jenkin's invitation? At the very least, it's the result of a self-serving agenda to either put the school or himself in the spotlight, and at worst case, it's the action of a Catholic priest who does not believe in one of the core truths of his Church.

This idea of "inviting dialog" as some would say in defense of Jenkin's actions, ought to raise questions as to the motivation behind it. If you know something to be a truth and self-evident, then what is the reason at inviting dialog? It serves no useful purpose, unless it is not a truth as you see it, and you are open to negotiation on it. Of course, the other possibility is that you actually sympathize with the opposing point of view, but don't dare acknowledge it openly because of your position or situation.

So even when it is acknowledged that there are plenty of Catholics who are pro-choice, why do some feel that these things have to go from beyond a "don't ask, don't tell" status? If those people are OK with their stance against their Church's core beliefs, then let them live with that if they can. But that doesn't mean that it should be legitimized. Why invite divisive discourse into the Church? If you insist on taking every viewpoint and giving it a stage and legitimacy, then the Church's beliefs are diluted, nullified and worthless. I know that there are those whose real religion boils down to one word: inclusion. In other words, there is practically nothing in anyone's habit, lifestyle or beliefs that shouldn't be accepted.

I think of the lyrics to the old country and western song that went something like, "You'd better stand for something or you'll fall for anything." Why does it feel so often now like our Churches are headed right for that end?