Update (March 31, 18:42 EDT): This blog post was mentioned on the "Grapevine" segment on FNC's "Special Report with Bret Baier." Video added at 13:00 EDT on April 1, 2009.[audio available here]
A contributing editor of a major weekly news magazine pens a newspaper op-ed defending a controversial decision by a prominent Catholic university. Said editor's son is a marketing executive for said Catholic institution, but neither the editor nor the newspaper disclose the fact to readers.
If the popular FAIL blog dealt with journalistic missteps, this would surely make the cut.
Enter Kenneth L. Woodward of Newsweek magazine, whose op-ed "Why Notre Dame Should Honor Obama" graces page A17 of the March 30 Washington Post.
Writes National Review Online's Kathryn J. Lopez:
I have no doubt that Kenneth Woodward's views on Notre Dame, Obama, and the Catholic Church are his — he has a long and accomplished career and history with the school, Church, and politics. But still: That Washington Post oped probably should have mentioned that Woodward's successful son (who is evidently responsible for "Got Milk?") is associate vice president for marketing at the University of Notre Dame.
Woodward, who "served as religion editor for 38 years" at Newsweek, touted his credentials as "adamantly pro-life" and "independent as a voter"in his 10-paragraph defense of his alma mater inviting the president to speak at the Class of 2009's commencement ceremony.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I feel the earth move under my feet ...
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 17:49 ET by Flying_DutchmanI have been wondering, should Notre Dame have retracted Reagan’s commencement invitation because he was divorced and remarried? Should George W. Bush have been shunned because he supports capital punishment? Now here’s a real interesting pair of questions: If Newt Gingrich becomes president, should Notre Dame overlook him because he is twice divorced and remarried? For those who don’t know, Newt is currently converting to Catholicism and has twittered negatively about Obama’s invite. Second Newt Question: When Newt becomes Catholic, will the church only recognize his first marriage and if so, what status will they assign brides two and three? It’s all pretty shaky moral ground, if you ask me.
Debatable questions
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 18:19 ET by KC MulvilleAs I understand it, Newt's previous marriages were annulled. In the eyes of the church, those marriages never existed. I won't debate the merit of that annulment, because that's between him and his pastor (and local diocesan marriage tribunal). I understand the scoffing, but all annulments get scoffed at anyway. Here is not the place to debate annulments, but that's how the local church answers your Newt questions.
As for retracting the invitations to the others, I've said elsewhere that if the invitation policy is for presidents simply because they're presidents, it is bound to create a conflict. It's a stupid policy.
The Reagan invitation isn't as problematic because Reagan wasn't a Catholic (though raised Catholic, he left the church when he was younger). As for capital punishment, it isn't against Church teaching or history. I happen to oppose the death penalty myself, but not because of theological or legal grounds; I oppose it on philosophical grounds.
On the other hand, abortion is considered a grave offense. Obama is an ardent (and now powerful) supporter of something we consider sinful. It's a judgment call, but I oppose Obama's invitation because of how aggressively he supports abortion. Obama, remember, argued that if a child is born alive, it could be killed anyway, simply to eliminate it as an argument against Roe v. Wade. I deny that you can take that policy and endorse it with a degree.
Help?
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 19:46 ET by Dave PierreFlying_Dutchman, I think you need some help understanding this issue. There is no "shaky moral ground."
Read this 2004 statement from the USCCB, and it should help you understand what this issue is really all about. (See also this.)
(As far as Newt goes, if he is in the stages of becoming a Catholic, I believe there are steps of repentence and reconciliation involved regarding past misdeeds. The Church does not tar someone forever for past deeds if they genuinely seek repentence and reconciliation. The issue would be between Newt and the Church, I believe.)
Cheers.
Then Why Not Retract Carter Or Clinton's Invites?
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 23:06 ET by The7SticksI read that this tradition for sitting presidents to make commencement speeches at Notre Dame goes back to the Eisenhower administration. Since then, we have had five Democratic presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama), and I assume the first four did give commencement speeches at Notre Dame. It can be argued that all of their invitations should have been retracted based on the violations of Catholic law, whether it was Kennedy's allegeded infidelity with Marylin Monroe, Johnson's extravagant welfare state, Carter's inability to recognize the Iranian revolutionaries, Hezbollah and Hamas as the bad guys, or Clinton's very public infidelities and rape allegations. And as far as I can tell, neither Carter nor Clinton did anything in particular to reduce, if not eliminate, abortion. Since Carter and Clinton are still alive, why hasn't the US Conference of Bishops attempted to recsind any honor they may have received from Notre Dame when they passed that resolution?
Yes, I am well aware of the extrordinary circumstances of Obama's abortion record on many of aspects (the born-alive act he opposed, the partial-birth ban he also opposed), but if the sole reason for Obama to not be allowed to speak at Notre Dame is abortion, then you should be in the process of stripping away the acknowledegements that Notre Dame made for every living comencement speaker that supports abortion, including former presidents Carter and Clinton. If not, then it seems to be a lousy double standard supported by a lunatic fringe (I haven't even heard the Catholic League make any fuss about it on their website last week, so we must be dealing with an unusual lunatic fringe.) It's times like this I'm glad I chose to be an agnostic Jew.
Well
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 00:01 ET by Kelly72Well, at least you acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances of Obama's abortion record. Extraordinary circumstances obviously call for extraordinary measures.
Perhaps, as you say, the other speakers should be stripped of such an honor. Indeed, that would seem to make sense. (Of course, people have spoken out and objected publicly to previous speakers who supported abortion on demand. It just did not happen to the great degree that it is happening now - finally.) Perhaps it took such an extraordinary anti-life figure to get people's attention, so that more than a small percentage would start giving due thought to the matter and speak out.
At any rate, your attempt to characterize the great numbers of people who are concerned about the consequences of bestowing a public honor on such a person, who are concerned about the great issue of the protection of human life... as a "lunatic fringe"... certainly discredits you. There is simply no basis whatsoever for such a characterization.
Notre Dame is not just honoring someone who believes in
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 00:35 ET by Rush Fanabortions. As I posted previously, Notre Dame is honoring a President who voted for and supports Infanticide.
As Andrew C. McCarthy wrote in the article linked above:
"They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings."
----------------------------------
When a Catholic university can honor (commencement address and honorary degree) a person who supports infanticide, how much lower can it go.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"But in an era where principles, core believes, and the essence of one's being are so casually discarded, it is a shock to me to see something as venerable at Notre Dame University cast theirs aside for reasons of comparatively no substance. Political correctness, tradition. Does not the tradition of having the newly elected president do your commencement address pale in comparison to the foundational building blocks of the university and the church on which it's founded? Are they going to have to cover up Touchdown Jesus the day Obama makes his speech? How could they not?" ~ Rush Limbaugh
Missing the point yet again
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 17:52 ET by KC Mulville"Yet I never supposed that by granting them the commencement podium the university was signaling its approval of their policies. Neither, now, should the bishops." Ken Woodward.
When you grant a degree, honorary or not, you are signaling your approval. That's what a degree is.
Politics, or conviction?
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 18:59 ET by Flying_DutchmanKC,
So you can differ with the University’s decision to invite Obama and that’s perfectly okay. That is your opinion. I would argue however that an on-line petition that is open to everyone (not just Notre Dame alumni, students and faculty, not even limited to those of the Catholic faith) enters the world of raw politics. Publicizing the tally numbers of this growing petition on every available news outlet makes matters worse.
There has been a lot of talk lately about mob rule with torches and pitchforks. I submit this is yet one more example of orchestrated “populist outrage” against our new president. The real question should be; what do the people directly associated with the university think? From what I have heard they are, for the most part, pleased with their commencement speaker.
News to me
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 19:25 ET by Kelly72I haven't heard that those directly associated with the university are, "for the most part", pleased...
I have seen that the alumni, for instance, both individuals and associations, have expressed their immense disgust with the decision. (No "orchestration" needed. It was immediate and spontaneous from all directions.)
How do you come to the conclusion of "for the most part"?
Really, it isn't news
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 20:11 ET by Flying_DutchmanKelly,
I can’t answer your broad question in detail, but my sense is that many Catholics would prefer to engage Obama rather than disrespect him by having Notre Dame retract his invitation. This by virtue of the fact that he is now leading this nation.
From: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/obama-visit-to-notre-dame-pr...
{Some at the university hope Mr. Obama will use the visit not just to deliver an address but to discuss these issues with students and others.
“At Notre Dame there’s the audacity of hope that the president will make good on his promises to take these issues seriously and dialogue with his critics,” said R. Scott Appleby, a history professor at the university, who supports the invitation. “This visit is one occasion, among others, for Notre Dame and the entire Catholic community to find ways to deepen and extend the dialogue on life issues.”}
I am sure you would agree that dialogue with your ideological opponents is a good thing. We may not agree, but we certainly have the capacity to learn from one another. Slamming the door in another person’s face generally ends the discussion.
Good rvening Flying
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 20:24 ET by cocodrieThank you for speaking for us Catholics.
In no way should Present Hussein Obama be allowed to speak at Notre Dame. His presence there is going to be an insult and slap in the face of every true Catholic and every one of the 40 million plus murdered babies.
Slam the door and let it hit him where the Good Lord split him. You can go with him if you like him and approve of murdering babies.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Breath in the air
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 21:05 ET by Flying_DutchmanI wasn’t speaking for Catholics, merely offering my opinion. The founding fathers offered their opinion as well, enunciating the idea that the church and the state should remain separated. Interestingly, they thought that a commingling of religion and government would denigrate both institutions. Lately, parts of the political religious right have lost sight of this certainty. Even though said denigration is happening before our very eyes.
Flying
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 21:32 ET by cocodrieYou said it is your "sense that" and then proceeded to say what Catholics think.
If you bother to read the papers written by the founding fathers you will find that they included God in all of them. They wanted government out of religion but wanted religion in government.
This idea of separation of church and state is a recent liberal invention put upon us by the liberal courts.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Okay
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 20:24 ET by Kelly72Well, as you admitted, that does not really answer the question. Thanks for trying, though.
I respect your comments about dialogue. However, this has nothing to do with "dialogue". There will be no "dialogue". Obama will give a speech. (One way communication.) Obama will get an "honor". No dialogue.
To willingly and publicly bestow an "honor" upon a person is a very significant matter. It has great consequence.
Anyway, the link provided by Dave above explains what the issue is really all about, so I will leave it at that.
Flying....."Slamming the
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 21:13 ET by celatorFlying....."Slamming the door in another person’s face generally ends the discussion."
My two cents: Obama himself slammed the door shut on "dialogue" re right to life a long time ago. His words, stubborness and philosophial positions (such as they are) on the topic are clear.
The rejection of his presence on Notre Dame would send a very clear message to those who uphold the sanctity of life from the moment of conception. To wit: those who enthusiastically and fanatically promote the planned assassination of unborn human beings are not welcome on this campus.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Understood
Mon, 03/30/2009 - 22:35 ET by KC MulvilleI hope to do something more than just spout off opinions. I don't expect anyone to follow my ideas just because I pronounce them. I try to offer reasons for my opinion, and hope that my reasoning is persuasive. That's the fun: can I persuade?
If it was just an in-house thing, you're right, I wouldn't make much of it. But Notre Dame markets itself as THE Catholic higher education institution. (As an ex-Jesuit, I disagree strongly.) But it doesn't matter. The media thinks so, and that's the point. The media takes Notre Dame as a focal point of Catholic academia. Notre Dame, naturally, plays up that angle; they're fully complicit in the myth that they speak for Catholic higher education. So I disagree that it's strictly a Notre Dame issue.