Comments on: Heartbreak, Hope, and Notre Dame: Legitimacy and Catholic Identity in the Public Square

By: JD

JD — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:34:31 +0000

But the problem is that there is no evidence that Obama is trying to reach the same “values” through a different strategy. There’s no evidence that he thinks of abortion as a “tragedy” at all, let alone that he wants abortion to be “ended” by any means whatsoever. To the contrary, he has expressly said that he thinks of abortion as a fundamental right, and the fact that he supports government funding for abortions even further cements the point that he wants to encourage more poor women (not fewer) to get abortions.

All of which is to say, it’s quite a piece of rhetorical spin (ironically enough) for you to claim that Obama is just trying to “end” abortion by a different strategy, and aren’t those prolifers awful for disagreeing with his strategy.

By: Kari J. Lundgren

Kari J. Lundgren — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:53:49 +0000

JD, Before you start accusing others of constructing "straw men," I think you'd do well to consider whether you yourself are doing that. You say that it is a straw man when I suggest that Catholic protesters at Notre Dame opposed President Obama's appearance there because he does not support criminalizing abortion, even while he has committed to reduce abortions through supporting women in hard circumstances. And yet that is precisely what occurred. This is fundamentally an issue of equating strategy and values, like I point out in my Aug 1 piece, "Buttiglione and the Abortion 'Battle.'" Just because President Obama may not share the legal philosophy of some pro-lifers (and some members of the Catholic hierarchy) does not de facto make him "anti-life." Such polarizing rhetoric helps no one but the fundraisers.

By: JD

JD — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:44:26 +0000

an insistence that Notre Dame violated its Catholic identity in honoring President Obama, since Mr. Obama has dared to suggest that the tragedy of abortion may be more successfully ended by supporting pregnant women in hard circumstances, rather than continuing the shouting match over Roe v. Wade that marks the political status quo.

This is a ridiculous caricature of your opponents’ position. People opposed Obama not because he wants to end the “tragedy of abortion” by other means, but because he staunchly declares that abortion is “one of the most fundamental rights we possess,” and because he wants to fund abortion with public dollars (as shown by his opposition to the Hyde Amendment). Needless to say, Obama’s commitment to abortion is at odds with everything the Church stands for.

Now it can still be a question whether Obama’s position is so wrong that it disqualifies him from receiving honorary degrees at a Catholic university. But if you want to offer any insight on that question, you have to begin by describing the question accurately, not by creating a straw man.

By: Julie Draper

Julie Draper — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:58:41 +0000

Kari,

Thanks for a balanced, well-supported, (and might I add well-written) post. I appreciate your spirit of optimism, as well as your committment to working out your dissension with other Catholics in a non-hyprocritical fashion-in other words, without calling into question their own Catholic identity. Kudos.

By: VennData

VennData — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:37:13 +0000

Where were these people when Cheney and Bush and Rove were supporting torture?

Torture! To live human beings. Where were your protests then?

Hypocrites. Political opportunists. Phonies.

By: Kari J. Lundgren

Kari J. Lundgren — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:05:02 +0000

Off the cuff or not, you make an important point, Mike. Legitimacy in its modern form has only been theorized for about a century. Thus, it really may not be something that the institutional Church has pondered much, for the reasons you describe – although I would of course argue that it should. Thanks for the insightful comment.

By: Mike F.

Mike F. — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:09:00 +0000

I have a knee jerk response to this very thoughtful post. I cannot resist this off the cuff comment.
When has the church ever sought “legitimacy”?
Maybe John XXIII in convening Vatican I showed a willingness to seek relevance for the Church in a changing world and there have, perhaps, been instances since then of similar forms of outreach by Church leaders who have followed. But the whole notion of “legitimacy”,I daresay, would leave the Vatican at a loss. Why the need for legitimacy?
Legitimacy would be seen by the Vatican as a birthright. No need to seek that which you are extended by merit of simply being “the Church”. The Church is granted legitimacy merely by having an uninterrupted line of succession from Peter. They needn’t worry about legitimacy. Not really.
As you stated in your post, legitimacy comes from the people. The Church has never been “of the people” in terms of its polity or in terms of its sharing of significant power…moral or just about any other form of real power.
In a world whose preferred form of political expression is becoming increasingly democratic the Church will have it hands full just staying relevant. Forget about legitimacy. That’s way down the line.
Beautiful post.