By Selwyn Duke

When John the Baptist said to
King Herod, “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife,” the price
he paid was his head on a platter.  He had
spoken Absolute Truth to power in a time when power was absolute.  It was the bravest of acts, the kind only undertaken
by those very rare men for all seasons.

Lying in stark contrast to this
is catholic (note the small “c”) Notre Dame University’s genuflection before
Barack Obama, a man embodying the very antithesis of Catholic teaching.  As most are aware, the university extended an
invitation to Obama to deliver a commencement address and, to make matters
worse, will bestow upon him an honorary doctorate. 

This is despite the fact that
Obama has distinguished himself as the most militantly anti-life president in
American history.  In fact, his support
of abortion extends to the point of infanticide,
and I speak of his, at best, indifference to the Born Alive Infants Protection
Act.  In opposing the Illinois version of
this legislation – thereby signaling his willingness to allow newborn babies to
die in soiled store rooms – he showed his true colors.  That is to say, it’s not so much that the
matter of when a baby gets human rights is above his pay grade; it’s that he is
morally degraded.

Adding to his impressive pro-death
resume, Obama has rescinded the Mexico City Policy, thereby allowing our tax
money to be used to promote abortion in foreign lands.  He is also using tax dollars to fund the
harvesting of stem cells from nascent human life.  And he endeavors to establish a policy that
would force health-care workers to either be party to abortion or risk losing
their jobs (“Freedom of Choice” Act). 

But it isn’t just on life
issues that Obama is found wanting.  He
also supports special rights for homosexuals (euphemistically called “gay
rights”).  Additionally, he apparently
was a member of Chicago’s socialist New Party in the 1990s, an association he
has never adequately disowned.  This is
relevant because socialism seems incongruent with Catholic teaching.  As Pope Pius XI said plainly in 1931, “No one
can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist.”  (In fact, the Church has long condemned
socialism – here
and here, for
instance).

Yet the inappropriateness of
honoring Obama at Notre Dame doesn’t have to be inferred from pronouncements from
the past.  Contemporary Church leaders
have made their voices heard as well, with 13 bishops publicly criticizing
the invitation.  Among them is Bishop
Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, who said,

“For President Obama to be
honored by Notre Dame is more than a disappointment, it is a scandal.” 

Archbishop John J. Myers of
Newark said,

“When we extend honors to
people who do not share our respect and reverence for life in all stages, and
give them a prominent stage in our parishes, schools and other institutions, we
unfortunately create the perception that we endorse their public positions on
these issues.”

Bishop R. Walker Nickless of
Sioux City wrote,

 “Catholic institutions of higher learning must
always be places where the Catholic values we hold so dearly will always be
supported and promoted – not where the culture of death is allowed to be
honored or valued.”

And, in a letter to Notre Dame
President Rev. John I. Jenkins, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and
Minneapolis called
the invitation an “egregious decision” and said,

“It is a travesty that the
University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University,
should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.”

Now, here some will say that
Jesus was also criticized for consorting with sinners and responded with that heavenly
wisdom, “The healthy are in no need of a physician.”  Yet this isn’t an analogous situation.  More appropriate here is, “The unhealthy are
in no need of a podium.”  I would have no
problem with anyone offering Obama counsel – he could certainly use it.  I myself would be happy to talk with him if
he asked; maybe I could muster shades of John the Baptist.  But what Notre Dame is doing is quite
different: It is honoring Obama by
bestowing a doctorate upon him. 
Additionally, it is not giving him an opportunity to receive counsel but
a forum in which to dispense it – and
to malleable young minds at that.

Then there are those, such as
the writers of this
silly Los Angeles Times editorial,
who accuse those on my side of hypocrisy, saying we were silent when pro-death
penalty George W. Bush spoke at Notre Dame in 2001.  Well, let’s examine this. 

First, I think I speak for many
when I say that Obama is objectionable not just because of his profound lack of
respect for life.  From his apparent
socialism (and I believe communism) to his support of “age-appropriate” sex
education for kindergarteners to his opposition to California’s Proposition 8,
he has served notice that he is pushing a hard-left agenda (which I documented here)
that certainly violates the letter and spirit of Catholic teaching.

Second, there is no equivalency
between abortion and the death penalty or, for that matter, what is supposedly
President Bush’s mortal sin, launching military campaigns.  The Church teaches that while capital
punishment is hardly ever necessary in modern societies, it nevertheless is the
right of “legitimate temporal authorities” to determine when it is
justifiable.  The Church also promulgates
something called “Just War Doctrine.”

There is no Just Abortion
Doctrine. 

Unlike capital punishment and
war, direct abortion is never morally licit under any circumstances.   

Having said this, there is a
deeper issue to address.  We’re all
sinners, and we could probably pick any president and find ways in which he
violated Catholic teaching.  And what
about academic freedom?  As the L.A. Times opined, the issue at Notre
Dame is “whether a distinguished university should ban a speaker with whom it
disagrees or engage him . . .” and that all universities “sometimes need to be
reminded of the importance of uninhibited debate.” 

But the university isn’t
“engaging” Obama; it is giving him a forum in which to speak unopposed.  There will be no debate.  Of course, I realize that when the editorialists
speak of “uninhibited debate,” they refer to a general climate of academic
inquiry and give-and-take fostered over time by exposure to different
ideas.  But while this sounds good, it’s
nonsense.

While leftists can pontificate
all they like about “academic freedom,” they draw lines like anyone else.  Would they hire a professor or schedule a
speaker who would advocate the extermination of a minority?  If not, why? 
I mean, whomever they chose will be a sinner, and do not judge lest ye
be judged, right?  And, would they
entertain a debate about the reinstitution of slavery or whether or not germs
really cause disease?  How about
trephination (drilling a hole in someone’s head) as a solution to mental
illness?

The point is that our
gratuitous talk about “open-mindedness” is mere sloganeering, because we all
consider certain issues to be settled. 
As G.K. Chesterton once said, “The point of having an open mind, like
having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid.”  A child cannot advance in math if he won’t
accept simple truths such as two plus two equals four, and science would never
have ascended from a childlike state of primitiveness had man not accepted and
then built upon simple scientific truths. 
We might have debated Aristotle’s geocentrism versus Copernicus’
heliocentrism in 1600, but if we had still been wrangling over it in 1910, we
would have been insane.  Perpetual
open-mindedness in all matters is not a virtue because it isn’t “mindedness” at
all; it is the trumping of the mind.  The
mind is there to find answers, not just ask questions.   

And moral truths should be
treated with at least the respect of scientific ones.  Of course, “open-minded” secularists will be
quick to point out that morality isn’t science, and I’ll be even quicker to say
they’re hypocrites.  I reiterate that
they draw their lines (slavery, racism, sexism, extermination of minorities,
etc.), proving that their relativistic creed is mainly for use on other
people’s values.  They have their dogma,
just like everyone else. 

But, leftists, here is a
newsflash: This isn’t about your
dogma – it concerns Catholic dogma.  You
have your values – twisted and distorted though they may be – and you’re very
self-centered to believe they should prevail in a Catholic setting.  Not everyone is as numb to morality as you
are, and believing Catholics understand that many matters you’re confused about
are actually settled issues.  We also
understand that, as with science, man cannot progress morally unless he accepts
known truths and builds upon them. 

The bottom line is that
Catholic institutions (if they are to be authentic) have a responsibility to
apply Catholic dogma, not the secular variety. 
They have an obligation to draw Catholic lines, not merely replicate
those of the Los Angeles Times.  They have a duty to instill students with
Catholic teaching, not that of Berkeley. 
Thus, in such an eminently sane setting abortion isn’t a debated
issue.  It’s a settled issue.  And Barack Obama isn’t just another
president.  He is way over the line.       

Really, this whole affair smacks
just a bit of evangelist Billy Graham’s obsequious behavior with respect to the
Clintons.  I’m referring to how he once
called them a “great couple” and “wonderful friends,” implied that Hillary Clinton
might make a good president and once quipped that Bill Clinton “should be an
evangelist” and “leave his wife to run the country.”  Ah, Rev. Graham, “if thou dost not speak to
warn the wicked from his way . . . .”

We should remember that since every
age has its Herods, we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions. Would
recognize one if we saw him?  And, then, would
we have the faith and strength to be a John the Baptist?

                      © Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved