Dear religious pro-life Catholics, get over yourselves. Signed, Amy Sullivan.
Okay, I'm paraphrasing, but the Time magazine staffer practically expressed those sentiments in two April 30 Swampland blog posts wherein she suggests that even the pope wouldn't mind hanging out with Obama on stage at Notre Dame when he accepts his honorary doctorate later this month.
"The Vatican apparently needs to get on-message--its newpaper gives Obama's first 100 days a tentative thumbs-up," Sullivan snarkily noted in a an April 30 post entitled "The Phantom Menace," referring to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which Sullivan considers a virtually non-existent pro-life movement bogeyman:
[Ed Henry's press conference] question is a misstatement of Obama's campaign pledge to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." Of course, before Obama could sign the bill, Congress would have to first pass it. And he's never expressed the hope that Congress drop what it's doing and prioritize FOCA.
Less than an hour later, Sullivan sought to marginalize conservative Catholics who are disturbed by Notre Dame honoring the very pro-choice President Obama:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Forget the Vatican. Apparently, most American Catholics need to get on-message as well.
Although Ed Henry also declared last night that Obama's scheduled commencement address at Notre Dame "has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics," a new Pew Research poll indicates that "a lot" is overstating things quite a bit. It's gotten a lot of attention in the press, that's true. But according to Pew, only 28% of Catholics think Notre Dame was wrong to have invited Obama.
But as the Pew survey shows, the more frequent attenders at Mass were more likely to oppose Obama being honored at Notre Dame's commencement. What's more, those who do regularly attend are more likely to be aware of the controversy in the first place, and hence arguably to have more informed opinions on the matter (emphasis mine):
Among white, non-Hispanic Catholics, regular Mass attenders are more than three times as likely as those who attend less often to say they have heard a lot about the controversy (35% vs. 10%). However, even among regular Mass attenders, a sizable minority say they have not heard anything at all (32%). Regular church attenders also express much higher levels of disapproval of Obama's visit to Notre Dame. Among white Catholics who attend church at least once a week, a plurality (45%) say it was wrong for Notre Dame to invite Obama, while the majority of less-observant Catholics (56%) take the opposite view, saying Notre Dame was right to invite him.
The absence of a general backlash on the part of Catholics to Notre Dame's invitation to Obama may not come as a surprise, given that most Catholics voted for Obama in the 2008 election and give him positive marks for his performance in office thus far. Obama won 54% of the overall Catholic vote in the November presidential election. Weekly attending Catholics, who in recent elections have tended to support Republican candidates, were evenly divided between Obama (49%) and McCain (50%).
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Freedom
May 1, 2009 - 16:30 ET by JDWCBN: Former U.S. Ambassador to Vatican Says No to Prestigious Notre Dame Award... and President Obama
It now turns out that Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. Ambassador to
the Vatican, will NOT speak at the Notre dame Graduation because of the
controversy...
And screw the tea parties.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
When people fear their government there is tyranny. When government fears the people there is liberty.
Sorrry Amy but you are full
May 1, 2009 - 16:33 ET by eaglewingz08Sorrry Amy but you are full of crap and a liberal (I know but I like the redundancy). While there might not be anything wrong in having Obama speak WITHOUT RECEIVING HONORARY DEGREES, at Catholic Universities, an institution should not award degrees to those who are anathema to their teachings, to those supporting infanticide abortion on demand and national suicide like Mr. Obama is. Indeed, Amy is a lying libtard because Obama did in fact make the pledge to Planned Parenthood that one of his first items of business as President would be to sign FOCA:
http://www.youtube.c...
It's in black and white and video. "On this I will not yield". The fact that Congress has not yet been able to pass it, does not mean that Obama changed his mind, or would not have signed it first had it been on his desk on January 21, 2009. Indeed, given the fact that Obama signed Exec Orders to basically do abroad on abortions what he was not yet presented with at home, gives the lie to Amy's statement that Obama isn't hot and heavy for shoving abortion down everyone's throat.
Now that Obama is within spitting distance of a filibuster proof Senate, it remains to be seen when Mr. Reid will be bringing the matter up for voting (probably not until Minnesota casts its vote).
False assumptions.
May 1, 2009 - 17:34 ET by sevenThe vatican may be communicating it's viewpoint clearly. They also are not famous for communication of an internal nature going thru the MSM.
giving a leader encouragement is not to be mistake for validation of his values.
Distortions
May 1, 2009 - 19:45 ET by KC MulvilleThe Vatican report was that the first hundred days of Obama were not as bad as expected, and since the expectations were horrible, that's hardly a compliment. That's not thumbs-up.
Obama said it was the first thing he would do as president. You really have to distort that plain statement to pretend Obama meant that he would sign it but he didn't think it would soon come across his desk. That's not a generous interpretation of the words "first thing as president," it's an outright contradiction.
Ken is right. The invitation to speak, which is how it was mostly reported in the press, isn't troubling. The problem was the honorary degree, which means that the school is endorsing Obama. Sullivan is three for three on the distortion list.
KC: I'd need a few more
May 1, 2009 - 20:44 ET by QueenMumKC: I'd need a few more fingers and toes to count the number of times that Obama promised "x" would be the first thing he would do as president.
As regards the Pope, he would certainly be willing to meet with Obama. But I'm sure he'd give him a stearn dressing down for his abortion stance. John Paul II had no compunctions about letting George W. Bush know what he thought about the war in Iraq.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Semantic games
May 1, 2009 - 20:28 ET by nkviking75[Ed Henry's press conference] question is a misstatement of Obama's campaign pledge to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." Of course, before Obama could sign the bill, Congress would have to first pass it. And he's never expressed the hope that Congress drop what it's doing and prioritize FOCA.
Most reasonable people would assume that if Obama wants to sign FOCA, he most likely wants Congress to pass FOCA. This is just another MSM semantic game.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
The Catholic League Has Barely Made A Fuss Over It...
May 1, 2009 - 22:51 ET by The7SticksThe involvement of the Catholic League in farces, like this protest against Obama for receiving an honorary degree at Notre Dame, would usually be an indicator that this would be a serious issue. As of yesterday, they have released about three-to-four press releases and a couple of columns related to the whole issue, most of them not even indicating that they are actively setting up petitions or whatnot against the university. Compare that to the other pro-life groups that have been releasing press release after press release add nauseam since this who pseudo-incident began. And it's not like the Catholic League has been silent lately. They're going into overdrive because Ronnie Howard wants to make fun of the Vatican in his new Angels & Demons movie, which is all good since I don't particularly care for the Vatican myself, but that's another story.
Until you show me some evidence that Jabba the Donahue and his Catholic League is going to be standing on crates outside the walls of N.D. with bullhorns in hand yelling "Obama is the anti-Christ", I'm not going to take this seriously for even a micro-second.
So, unless the Catholic
May 2, 2009 - 08:52 ET by motherbeltSo, unless the Catholic League is going to be standing on crates outside the walls of
N.D. with bullhorns in hand yelling "Obama is the anti-Christ",
it shouldn't be taken seriously? Is in-your-face noisy protest the only way to make one's displeasure known?
Unless they are going to throw a public tantrum they should shut up?
And your "Jabba the Donohue" crack is evidence of the fact that you wouldn't take the Catholic League seriously under any circumstances.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Just Got Back From The Catholic League Website...
May 1, 2009 - 23:30 ET by The7SticksThis is my info regarding the Catholic League's position over this whole incident as of May 1st. They also brought up this whole Pew Research poll, though I admit it doesn't particularly bode well for my arguments:
http://www.catholicleague.org/chatterbox.php?#243
"Chatterbox...
May 1, 2009
Catholics on Notre Dame-Obama Flap
A Pew Research survey shows Catholics approve of the decision by Notre Dame to invite President Obama to give the Commencement address and receive an honorary degree by a decisive margin, 50-28. But the difference between practicing and non-practicing Catholics is profound. Practicing Catholics disapprove by a margin of 45-37 while non-practicing Catholics approve 56-23.
None of this is surprising. Practicing Catholics voted narrowly for McCain over Obama while non-practicing Catholics went big time for Obama. Those who don’t go to church too often tend to be pro-abortion and those who go to church on a regular basis tend to be pro-life.
Practicing Catholics, of course, are the ones who pay the bills. By definition, those who rarely go contribute little. Moreover, as Arthur C. Brooks has shown, the data clearly demonstrate that the most generous Americans are the most conservative and the most religious; the stingiest are the most liberal and the most secular. Meaning that even when non-practicing Catholics do go to church, they are not likely to give much.
Perhaps it’s time pollsters stopped counting non-practicing Catholics as Catholics. After all, those who rarely attend AA meetings aren’t a true reflection of the utility of AA programs. And vegetarians who regularly eat meat—save for occasions when they dine with practicing vegetarians—aren’t a true reflection of vegetarian sentiment on any given issue. In other words, non-practicing Catholics are not a true representation of Catholic opinion."
Like I said, it doesn't particularly aid my argument, but if you want the truth, okay, fine, handle the truth. 'Course, the editorializing doesn't represent my views since I think this is a free country so they shouldn't be telling us how to practice our religions. I choose to be a secular Jew, and I'm sticking to it.
?
May 1, 2009 - 23:42 ET by general companyGetting a grip are we?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Amy has a point
May 17, 2009 - 15:55 ET by carolina09How about some public help from the Vatican? Call for Jenkins to repent, resign, something!
The pope isn't everything
May 17, 2009 - 20:54 ET by KC MulvilleThat's not how the church works. The conduct of the church is in the purview of the local bishop. Technically, the local bishop is as high as you can go. And as it turns out, the bishops in this country issued clear guidelines that we don't give honors to people who espouse a perspective that directly contradicts the church's perspective. That's why people got upset about Notre Dame going its own way.