Cardinal DiNardo ups the ante

posted at 11:15 am on March 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The protest over Notre Dame’s invitation to Barack Obama as a commencement speaker has grown to include four bishops and now a cardinal.  Andrew Malcolm reports that Cardinal Daniel DiNardo has added his considerable voice to the effort to convince Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame, to withdraw the invitation, or failing that, the honorary degree:

I find the invitation very disappointing. Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning.”

The President has made clear by word and deed that he will promote abortion and will remove even those limited sanctions that control this act of violence against the human person.

The Bishops of the United States published a document a few years ago asking all Catholic universities to avoid giving a platform or an award to those politicians or public figures who promote the taking of unborn human life.

Even given the dignity of Office of the President, this offer is still providing a platform and an award for a public figure who has been candid on his pro-abortion views.

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.

The speaking gig could be rationalized as keeping with an open debate policy.  The university will also have Mary Ann Glendon speak at the same commencement.  Langdon served as US Ambassador to the Vatican and who just received the Laetare Award from Notre Dame for her tireless effort on pro-life causes.  The commencement could serve as a teaching moment, although it’s probably more accurate to say that it will send a very mixed message from the university about its view of the Catholic mission in public life.

Notre Dame has no ground on which to stand over the award of the honorary degree, however.  Barack Obama used his influence in law to pursue a path that allowed the maximum latitude in destroying innocent life, which is anathema to the Catholic Church and should be to Notre Dame as a part of it.  Giving him an award in recognition of his service to the law honors actions like blocking the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act on multiple occasions, which allowed abortion clinics to continue their practice of infanticide.  How can a part of the Catholic Church honor that?

More than 120,000 people agree, and have signed the petition demanding that Notre Dame withdraw the invitation or at least revoke the honorary degree.  The bishop of that diocese has already declared that he will boycott Notre Dame’s commencement activities.  Hopefully, the alumni will impress on Fr. Jenkins that the damage may go much further than just a truckload of petitions and a severe loss of prestige among the nation’s Catholic faithful.

Update: Divine intervention, via hockey?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

This kind of symbolism does undermine the right to life stance of the Catholic Church.

petunia

Bingo! And isn’t that possibly the reason the big-eared freak jumped at the chance? It furthers his agenda, gives him Catholic street cred and weakens the church in the eyes of non-Catholics, many of whom already think we are fools for walking around with dirty foreheads one day a year.

SKYFOX on March 30, 2009 at 6:54 AM

Bingo! And isn’t that possibly the reason the big-eared freak jumped at the chance? It furthers his agenda, gives him Catholic street cred and weakens the church in the eyes of non-Catholics, many of whom already think we are fools for walking around with dirty foreheads one day a year.

SKYFOX on March 30, 2009 at 6:54 AM

You have made a very good point here and I believe that you are correct.

sinsing on March 30, 2009 at 8:23 AM

Quit whining. I know the truth hurts but don’t take out on me. Take it out on the offender, i.e. the Catholic Church.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 1:29 AM

You, sir, are reprehensible. Quit talking about the Catholic faith since you are no longer a Catholic. Read the Screwtape Letters, and then figure out where you fit in.

chai on March 30, 2009 at 8:32 AM

Maybe Notre Dame should award a degree to the Teleprompter…its first degree ever. Someone else, please make a joke about the third degree.

Broadsword on March 30, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Notre Dame should exclude Obama ASAP. He doesnt value anything the Church teaches and it would be an insult to all Catholics, who know or follow anything Catholic, to the upmost degree.

Good for the Bishops and the Cardinal.

We dont worship Presidents.

TheHat on March 30, 2009 at 9:05 AM

120,000 people agree, and have signed the petition

As a protestant, am I allowed to sign on?

oldleprechaun on March 30, 2009 at 9:32 AM

You, sir, are reprehensible. Quit talking about the Catholic faith since you are no longer a Catholic. Read the Screwtape Letters, and then figure out where you fit in.

chai on March 30, 2009 at 8:32 AM

First of all, I am a free American and can speak to anything I want to. Second, I am not attacking the faith. I am pointing out the failures and hypocrisies of the church. Big difference. Too many people make the mistake of equating organized religion to faith. Pope to God. Remember the admonition about worshiping false idols.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 9:44 AM

At the end of the day, Obama will come out looking great. He will give a great speech about the honest differences of opinion when it comes to abortion. And he will end his speech with a call to work together to prevent unplanned pregnacies. He will get a standing ovation and the 150,000 who signed the petition and created this uproar will end up looking like small-minded, intolerant, ideologues. Another win for Obama.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 9:48 AM

As a protestant, am I allowed to sign on?

oldleprechaun on March 30, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Last I looked, they weren’t asking. In fact, a university which claims the “Fighting Irish” as a mascot might listen closely to a Protestant leprechaun.

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Given that there has been no “working together”, and, in fact, not the least concession on his part, even up to the point of him protecting infanticide, I think our side in this matter will have the upper ground.

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Indeed. Indeed. As for being a free American, it’s certainly doubtful how long that will last once the “hate speech” legislation kicks in.

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 10:05 AM

We dont worship Presidents.

TheHat on March 30, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Great line!

+10

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 10:06 AM

I think our side in this matter will have the upper ground.

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Don’t bet on it. Obama will come out looking great and the protesters will look like fools. It would have been better if the protesters had approached this from “we hope his coming here will cause Obama to reconsider his more extreme positions like the Born Alive and late term abortion” angle. Point out that Obama is far from the mainstream of American opinion on those two issues. The pro-life movement just doesn’t know how to play politics.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:12 AM

By limiting their comments to saying that it was always considered immoral, it obfuscates the fact that the punishment the Church did change its position on whether it was considered murder from conception or not.

Chekote on March 29, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Informed conscience. Science has presented the proof via DNA that the child is a separate person, and is human from the point of conception. There can be no vegetable soul or animal soul. And, since ensoulment is not a measurable with current science, it’s best to error on that point of theology toward conservatism.

Indeed, the Church has changed its position on abortion being murder (which renders it a mortal sin), but has been consistent in calling it a sin. Now, the question is, is abortion a sin like overeating, or a sin like enslavement, or a sin like murder?

Given what we know about the humanity of a fetus, and the Church’s current position (which has been where it is for longer than any of us have been alive), does the Church have the right to say who will come speak in its own house?

You say no, and I (and most others here) say yes.

We shall see who prevails.

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 10:14 AM

This would be like Hillary Clinton visiting Our Lady of Guadelupe, and receiving the Margaret Sanger award for eugenics… I mean family planning, shortly thereafter.

Hey wait – that’s actually happening!

hawksruleva on March 30, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Don’t bet on it. Obama will come out looking great and the protesters will look like fools. It would have been better if the protesters had approached this from “we hope his coming here will cause Obama to reconsider his more extreme positions like the Born Alive and late term abortion” angle. Point out that Obama is far from the mainstream of American opinion on those two issues. The pro-life movement just doesn’t know how to play politics.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:12 AM

I think you overestimate Obama’s popularity and underestimate the eloquence of the protesters (such as Jill Stanek) who can be quite eloquent in rebutting Obama’s unscientific stance. When the dust settles, Obama may be the darling of Planned Parenthood, but he is so far to the left of most Americans on this matter that “baby killer” is an apt epithet.

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 10:17 AM

hawksruleva on March 30, 2009 at 10:16 AM

She didn’t receive the award at Guadelupe, however — at Guadelupe, she got an attack of the stupids.

Hey wait — that happened at Planned Parenthood too!

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Indeed, the Church has changed its position on abortion being murder (which renders it a mortal sin), but has been consistent in calling it a sin.

My point was that the Catholic Church has changed its position on abortion being a mortal sin at all stages. The Church is telling a half truth when it claims it never changed its position. Thanks for backing me up.

does the Church have the right to say who will come speak in its own house? You say no, and I (and most others here) say yes.

I never said the Church does not have the right to say who will speak at its house. Of course, it does. My point is that they had pro-choice speakers in the past, therefore, disinviting Obama based on the issue of abortion is hypocritical.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Jill Stanek’s eloquence will be limited as long as she insists on using the term pro-abortion. This term makes the pro-lifers feel good about themselves; however, it turns off the majority of Americans who don’t like abortion but don’t want the government to meddle. The majority of Americans are pro-choice. Take a look at the recent ballot initiatives to ban abortion in South Dakota and Colorado.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

If you support abortion you shouldn’t try to hide it behind euphamistic language. If you are embarrassed by “pro-abortion” possibly you should re-consider your support for it rather than insist on deceptive language to describe it.

petunia on March 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Obama made himself a SYMBOL of infanticide and abortion by making it his priority in his first few days. Obama is a killer pure and simple. It is totally inconsistent to think of him in any other way.

petunia on March 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM

If you support abortion you shouldn’t try to hide it behind euphamistic language. If you are embarrassed by “pro-abortion” possibly you should re-consider your support for it rather than insist on deceptive language to describe it.

petunia on March 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM

If you want to continue the foolish labeling, go right ahead. The majority of Americans ain’t buying it. They know the difference between being pro-abortion – which means encouraging people to have abortions – and pro-choice – which means letting the woman make her own decision. You are not fooling anyone and that is why – despite 30+ years of hysterics – the pro-life, sorry, the anti-choice movement has little to show in terms of progress on this issue.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

We dont worship Presidents.

TheHat on March 30, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Exactly! And we should have the guts to say so and show it in the public square, no matter the consequences. (Daniel Chapter 3)

newton on March 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM

At the end of the day, Obama will come out looking great. He will give a great speech about the honest differences of opinion when it comes to abortion. And he will end his speech with a call to work together to prevent unplanned pregnacies. He will get a standing ovation and the 150,000 who signed the petition and created this uproar will end up looking like small-minded, intolerant, ideologues. Another win for Obama.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 9:48 AM

Who are you anyway? Certaily not a Catholic, or you would be just as upset as the rest of us. Oh, yes, you are a fallen Catholic… hmmmmmmm….

chai on March 30, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Pro-”choice” – which is simply an euphemism for “pro-death” – people don’t seem to remember one thing:

The future belongs to those who show up.

Take it from a survivor – or rather, someone who was quite close to be snuffed out eight months before showing up. (Daddy found out and wanted me off the picture, and was willing to pay cold, hard cash. Mom said, “Not a chance in Hell!”)

There’s nothing like finding out about something like this to realize how close one was to death even before birth… or how Wrong and Clueless the pro-death crowd really are about this.

Remember:

The future belongs to those who show up.

And show up, we have, and we will!

newton on March 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Who are you anyway? Certaily not a Catholic, or you would be just as upset as the rest of us. Oh, yes, you are a fallen Catholic… hmmmmmmm….

chai on March 30, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Why is this relevant? Are only Catholics in good standing allowed to comment? Is this where Hot Air wants to take the conservative movement?

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM

My point was that the Catholic Church has changed its position on abortion being a mortal sin at all stages. The Church is telling a half truth when it claims it never changed its position. Thanks for backing me up.

But never on being a sin.

Oh, my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins because of thine just punishment, but most off all because they offend thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I resolve, with the help of thy grace, to sin no more, and to avoid the near occasion of sin. Amen.

That’s called the Act of Contrition, and you’ll note by the prayer that the Church is not very permissive of any sort of sin.

Giving a sinner a platform to crow and grow their sins is counter to everything the Church teaches.

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I never said the Church does not have the right to say who will speak at its house. Of course, it does. My point is that they had pro-choice speakers in the past, therefore, disinviting Obama based on the issue of abortion is hypocritical.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Ah. The old “Two wrongs, entered into this this formula, do make a right!” argument.

unclesmrgol on March 30, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Pro-”choice” – which is simply an euphemism for “pro-death” – people don’t seem to remember one thing:

I guess you need to tell that to Glenn Beck. Here from a recent interview:

“…. Michael Steele, who in a recent interview with GQ, just said he was pro-choice. Is that OK with you?

Yeah, I’m a libertarian, man. I am pro-life, but in my perfect world, we encourage people to make decisions that are pro-life. That’s the way it works.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-17/glenn-beck-on-why-hes-no-rush-limbaugh/full/

I know that many believe that by calling themselves pro-life, it automatically makes those who oppose them pro-death. They really think they are clever. Too bad they are only fooling themselves. The last laugh is on them.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Take it from a survivor – or rather, someone who was quite close to be snuffed out eight months before showing up. (Daddy found out and wanted me off the picture, and was willing to pay cold, hard cash. Mom said, “Not a chance in Hell!”)

Only someone that is interested in using her child as a weapon against her husband, partner would tell a child that his father didn’t want him/her. Disgraceful.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

First of all, I am a free American and can speak to anything I want to.

No, some of your speech is hateful, slanderous and entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, you are spreading lies, and you are well aware of it.

Second, I am not attacking the faith.

Yes, you are. You picked out examples of “hypocrisy” and used it to paint the Church as being morally inconsistent.

I am pointing out the failures and hypocrisies of the church. Big difference. Too many people make the mistake of equating organized religion to faith.

Your problem is the cliched objection to organized religion. You fancy yourself a free thinker while repeating talking points from Wikipedia rather than the catechism, because you are too lazy to attend church, devote real deep and serious thought to the issue or engage in honest debate. You have your own prejudices which keep you from any philosophical development or genuine insight.

Pope to God. Remember the admonition about worshiping false idols.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Because he stands on the Catholic principle that life is sacred, that abortion is a mortal sin, an opinion that it has consistently held since the First century? Please.

chunderroad on March 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Why is this relevant? Are only Catholics in good standing allowed to comment? Is this where Hot Air wants to take the conservative movement?

Chekote: Anyone can comment, obviously. But if you are going to attack the Church, you’d better be certain of its teachings, or you sound morally bankrupt and ignorant. That’s all….

chai on March 30, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Jill Stanek’s eloquence will be limited as long as she insists on using the term pro-abortion.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

* Barack Obama passed in his first 50 days the funding of foreign abortions with your tax dollars.
* Tax payer money will also go to the killing of Embryos

It is a simple law of economics that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. Right now 22% of pregnancies in the US end in abortion. Obama has taken steps to make that number go up in the US, as well as worldwide. The prefix pro means forward. He moves the issue beyond choice to pro-abortion. This was made clear with BAIPA, something Jill Stanek saw firsthand. The neutrality clauses were there. He lied when he gave his reasons for opposing the legislation.

The abortion lobby is a powerful one in the US, and it has plenty of Democrats on its payroll. IL Sen. Barack Obama most certainly was and is, even as a sitting President. If he enacts FOCA, you can expect the number of abortions will go up accordingly:

1. Partial-birth abortion will now be legal.

2. Parental consent laws for minors will no longer be in effect. Although a seventeen-year-old girl has to have her parents present in order to get acne medicine, a thirteen-year-old can get an abortion without her parents knowing.

3. Laws prohibiting public funding of abortion will be struck down. The American taxpayer will now have to fund something many of us know to be murder.

4. Laws requiring women to be shown information about (including being shown ultrasounds) and alternatives to abortion will be struck down.

5. Laws allowing medical staff and hospitals to refuse to perform abortion on grounds of conscience will be struck down. (Where’s the freedom of choice here?)

6. Laws prohibiting medical personnel other than licensed physicians from performing abortions would be invalidated because they may “interfere with” access to abortion. (Talk about protection for women!)

7. Government agencies and officials are prohibited from taking any action that would “discriminate against the exercise of” the FOCA-created legal rights, with respect to any “benefits, facilities, services, or information,” would leave government officials open to lawsuits for anything that anybody thought “discriminate(s)” against abortion.

chunderroad on March 30, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Only someone that is interested in using her child as a weapon against her husband, partner would tell a child that his father didn’t want him/her. Disgraceful.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

It sounds like the mother did the raising and the deadbeat dad did the running. Maybe if the father had actually been there, he could have told his child he loved him / her.

chunderroad on March 30, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Abortion is just such an old hackneyed issue to me. Why would I interfere in another person’s medical decisions? I wouldn’t.

This issue will always be one, it appears, that pushes moderates away from the Republican party. Defend it all you wish, but it’s quite offensive to insist others must follow a particular belief.

The issue itself simply makes me tired. Enuf already.

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Well, AnninCA, you might even say it’s a wedge issue, huh? One of those emphatic for / against it or pregnant / non-pregnant or yes / no or life / death things kind of things. As tired as you claim to be, you still lifted your pinky twice to voice your non-opinion.

“Present.” Got it.

chunderroad on March 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Abortion is just such an old hackneyed issue to me. Why would I interfere in another person’s medical decisions?

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM

ummmmmm……maybe to save a life? If life is important to you.
If life is expendable, then it would be a “non-issue” for you. It all depends on how valuable you consider a life, which you obviously have placed on a lower scale of importance.

right2bright on March 30, 2009 at 1:59 PM

My point is that they had pro-choice speakers in the past, therefore, disinviting Obama based on the issue of abortion is hypocritical.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Which speakers voted for and passed a bill for abortion rights, and which one also has taken a national platform to support the same?
Name please…

right2bright on March 30, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I see Chekote is incapable of learning.

Chekote, that was a classical logic blunder. Tu Quoque. Do you ever learn?

If anything we are learning a lot about you in your answers, repeated errors, and evasions – mainly that you are an Obama supporter and an anti-Catholic bigot. Thanks for showing at least that much.

OrdinaryColoradan on March 30, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Is this too small an issue for the pope to address? Somehow I think JPII would have had something to say, even if it were a private message to Mr. Jenkins. I’d like to think so, anyway.

SKYFOX on March 30, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Well, it’s a “vote present,” since I would love to vote Republican these days on most issues, but this one prevents my endorsement.

That’s OK.

I’ll stay in my apparent “blue dawg” niche.

I think it is one of those old, tired right-winger issues that drives people away and was the point of this article.

Unless the Republican party decides to move forward, it won’t.

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Is this too small an issue for the pope to address? Somehow I think JPII would have had something to say, even if it were a private message to Mr. Jenkins. I’d like to think so, anyway.

SKYFOX on March 30, 2009 at 2:30 PM

In his capacity as a member of the Holy Cross order, Jenkins should report in some way* to that order’s superior general who, in turn, reports to the Pope. It seems as though a statement from the Superior General should be the next step. I haven’t seen any reports of what the superior general’s view is about the situation. I think he is housed in Rome.

It’s time that the Church make a decision to either rein in this willfully disregard for Church teaching or pull out of Notre Dame altogether. If the Church is willing to close down its hospitals over FOCA, they should be willing to revoke the privilege of being called a Catholic university from places like Notre Dame.

*I found that at least some activities, such as the establishment and dissolution of communities of Holy Cross clery, require written approval of the diocesan bishop, which would be Bishop D’Arcy in this case. D’Arcy also has authority over the parish in St. Joseph’s County that is situated at the University Notre Dame. I think that the argument that he has no say in this — or that the statement from the U.S. council of bishops somehow does not apply to Notre Dame — is a misinterpretation of the situation.

Y-not on March 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM

No, AnninCA, the point was that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops spoke out against this four years ago, and a Catholic university should be giving a platform to those who exemplify and promote the Church’s values.

It’s fine if you want to remain a “blue dawg” Democrat, but there are likely more examples than subsidizing abortion where you feel centralized government is the solution. The last thing the Republican party needs is your advice on its values, since you admit you put life low on your list of priorities. That’s what makes you a Democrat period.

chunderroad on March 30, 2009 at 3:46 PM

5,000 babies are murdered each day in the US.
If you don’t see the contrast in your thinking, I’m not sure there is much to be done but by God himself.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Damn, if I’m ever on a debate team I want katy on it with me!

Liberty or Death on March 30, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Amazing for a Catholic institution to bestow an Honorary Law Degree to a lawyer whose stand on the born-alive bills hinges on a legalism worthy of the Dred Scott case as defining down the defintion of ‘human’ for gain

it may be Obama’s biggest public slip up in image building that he went on record explained his opposition to born alive bills because they were missing the neutrality definition in the federal law of ‘pre-viables’ as not rating equal protection as full humans – or what the federal law tactfully calls homo sapiens

the federal law carries the clause: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.”

wikipedia Dred Scott

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue in court, and that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process. The Court in the Dred Scott decision sided with border ruffians in the Bleeding Kansas dispute who were afraid a free Kansas would be a haven for runaway slaves from Missouri. The Supreme Court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

An Honorary Law Degree from Notre Dame (Our Lady) for the man who fought on the new Dred Scott

entagor on March 30, 2009 at 5:18 PM

chund….I honestly do not care. I’ll watch from the sidelines.

I was a long-time Dem who voted McCain this year.

I may never break my pattern again.

I can say, either the candidate put forth convinces me that these issues are peanuts…..

Or, I’m outta there.

Abortion is a dead horse.

truly

And for those of you insisting that the party continue beating it, then I hear you, I respect that, and I’ll avoid anyone taking that side.

Your choice.

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Not that any of this has anything to do with the topic at hand which is whether or not the Catholic Church should step in when a Catholic organization choses to completely ignore instructions from the U.S. bishops…

I was a long-time Dem who voted McCain this year.

And for those of you insisting that the party continue beating it, then I hear you, I respect that, and I’ll avoid anyone taking that side.

McCain is pretty darned pro-life. I wonder why it didn’t bother you to vote for him this time, but it will somehow keep you from voting Republican into the future.

Y-not on March 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM

NObama @ NOtre Dame

JihadKiller1s1k on March 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM

y-Not…some of us actually looked at John’s record of experience.

I trusted him to not make choices that would further divide this country.

I still think I’m right, btw.

I am not interested in ideologues, of either persuasion.

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 7:03 PM

The reality is that pro-lifers are not interested in saving lives. They are interested in feeling good about themselves. If they truly wanted to save lives, they would stop the hysterics, name calling and all the other nonsense and focus on restricting abortion past the first trimester. Work on reducing unplanned pregnacies by pushing for sex education and dropping the idiotic abstinence only approach. Even Bristol Palin said that abstinence only is not “realistic”. I guess Sarah Palin must be a bad mother. But isn’t about saving “babies”. The pro-life movement is about beating their chests “look at me. I am more moral than you. I am good. You are evil.” Just read the posts here. Immediately, pro-choice people are labeled Democrats, immoral, etc. If Ed Morrissey is interested in building up the conservative movement, he would set the standard by telling the pro-lifers to back off the moralistic grandstanding and encourage a reasonable debate.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM

AnninCA

The Republican Party will continue to shrink its electoral footprint as long as they keep social issues – especially abortion – front and center. Unfortunately, too many Republican politicians know that by simply uttering “I stand for the culture of life” they will get automatic votes from the pro-life drones. This is the path of least resistence and the quick and lazy way to get votes. Nevermind, that once in power they do nothing to actually ban abortion. They’ll bring up legislation that enjoys support among both pro-lifers and pro-choicers. The GOP controlled Congress and the White House for several years, did they ever bring up the HLA for a vote? No.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 7:33 PM

y-Not…some of us actually looked at John’s record of experience.

I trusted him to not make choices that would further divide this country.

I still think I’m right, btw.

I am not interested in ideologues, of either persuasion.

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 7:03 PM

So why do you seem ready to give up on the GOP now? Don’t you think the party is capable of fielding other candidates, of whatever persuasion with regards to abortion, whom you might find acceptable? You seemed to be saying that this was the final straw and you would not vote for GOP candidates into the future. I find that puzzling.

Y-not on March 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM

Take it from a survivor – or rather, someone who was quite close to be snuffed out eight months before showing up. (Daddy found out and wanted me off the picture, and was willing to pay cold, hard cash. Mom said, “Not a chance in Hell!”) newton on March 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Only someone that is interested in using her child as a weapon against her husband, partner would tell a child that his father didn’t want him/her. Disgraceful.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Only someone who is a straight up coward could take a courageous and graciously told story like the one Newton shared with us and twist it into something as vile as a vicious attack on Newton’s mother.

I have seen the pro-aborts do this time and again – they have no respect for themselves or anyone else and they violate people on the most personal level. Chekote fits this profile well; the things most of us hold as sacred – such as motherhood and life itself; he uses for his obscene commentary.

You keep going, Newton. You keep showing up because on this blog you already have made your mark and made it well.

tigerlily on March 31, 2009 at 2:56 AM

What was I thinking in believing that any moral precepts could guide my decision-making? If I had the intellectual firepower of a Chekote or AnninCA I could dispense with this whole value-of-life thing and silly soul-endowed-by-God nonsense and just “do it”. Nothing matters but me and what I want. Screw you all.
God, I feel so free!

SKYFOX on March 31, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Only someone that is interested in using her child as a weapon against her husband, partner would tell a child that his father didn’t want him/her. Disgraceful.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

There are plenty of kids on the other side who never got to hear that their mothers didn’t want them but their dads did, because their mother killed them. The reason for their death was — whatever the mother thought ought to be the reason, including use of the death as a weapon against the father.

I’ll always take allowing the “potential” hearing of ugly truths over permanently preventing them from ever being heard any day.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Abortion is just such an old hackneyed issue to me. Why would I interfere in another person’s medical decisions? I wouldn’t.

This issue will always be one, it appears, that pushes moderates away from the Republican party. Defend it all you wish, but it’s quite offensive to insist others must follow a particular belief.

The issue itself simply makes me tired. Enuf already.

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Hmm. Interfere. When the state funds something, it is no longer a private matter not brooking interference. Your side gave us the right to interfere by demanding not only that abortions be allowed, but that they be funded from the public till.

Now that they are funded from the public till, and the enumerated rights now include the killing of a child born alive in an abortion facility, I think we have quite the right to interfere here.

You many not like it, but we have the right.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5