CNN's Roland Martin Tries to Blur Life Issues With Obama Speech at Notre Dame

Photo of Matthew Balan.
By Matthew Balan (Bio | Archive)
March 31, 2009 - 14:39 ET
  • Bookmark and Share

Roland Martin, CNN Anchor | NewsBusters.orgOn Monday evening, CNN’s Roland Martin began his eight-week run as fill-in anchor for Campbell Brown on her Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull program, who took maternity leave with the upcoming arrival of her unborn baby. As the show began, he gave an “opening statement” of sorts as to how he hoped to anchor the program: “I’m not going to bother with the silly notion of who’s a liberal or a conservative on this show. I voted for Obama and also for George H.W. Bush -- Republicans and Democrats. On some issues, I might be called a liberal -- on others, a conservative. I judge people based on the issues, and refuse to be pigeonholed and wedded to the ridiculous notion of ideology. Our goal on this show is very simple, that is to speak truth to power, no matter the party or the person.”

Despite this attempt to portray his self as a non-partisan, Martin’s record on CNN betrays his left-wing leanings. He has bashed pro-lifers as being “hateful” and dismissed them as not caring about babies once they are born. He slammed John McCain’s voting record on the Iraq war, and used the cliched “fat idiot” insult against Rush Limbaugh. He was a cheerleader for both Barack and Michelle Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. Martin advised Barack Obama to emphasize his liberal credentials. He also accused conservative critics of Michelle Obama of being “crazy folks on the right” (who also don’t like strong women apparently), and hit “idiot Democrats” when she was accused of using the term “whitey.”

Given this track record, it’s no surprise that the anchor did his best to obscure the issues concerning President Barack Obama’s upcoming commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame. He moderated a panel discussion with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League and Father Jim Martin of America magazine, a Catholic publication which regularly dissents from Church teaching. He teamed up with the liberal Catholic priest to incorrectly give the impression that the Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty rises to the same level as its opposition to abortion.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In his first question, Martin asked Donohue if Notre Dame was “out of step” in inviting Obama, despite the fact that the university community specifically and Catholics in general supported the president during the election. As you might expect, Donohue blasted the supporters of the invite:

DONOHUE: The bishops put out a statement in 2004 saying any person who’s going to get an award or get a platform at a Catholic institution shouldn’t be in contrary to some of its major teachings. Now, abortion, like racism, is intrinsically evil. Liberal Catholics would be against a racist getting an award. They’re not against giving an award to somebody who is pro-abortion, and that’s a shame on them.

Martin simultaneously responded to Donohue and asked Father Martin for his take: “Jim, I think he’s talking to you. He’s talking about liberal Catholics.” The Catholic priest then voiced his support for the Obama invite, and set up the anchor’s argument on the issue of the death penalty: “I do think that, you know, abortion is the preeminent sort of problem in the Catholic Church, in terms of its issues, but I don’t think it’s the only issue that we should be looking at.”

For the rest of the segment, Roland Martin did not deviate from trying to give the impression that the death penalty is as serious an issue to the Catholic Church as abortion is. He began by citing the current and the last pope: “One of the critical issues when it came to Bush speaking [in] 2001 [at Notre Dame] -- death penalty. I have heard Pope Benedict, as well as Pope John Paul II, talk about the death penalty, and they rank it just right up there with abortion.”

As an admitted lapsed Catholic, the anchor should know better than to expound on Catholic doctrine as if he is an authority. In reality, these two popes, nor the Church as an institution, does not “rank it just right up there with abortion.” The Church’s opposition to the death penalty is a relatively new phenomenon, and it does not rise to the level of dogma. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Whereas, Pope John Paul II wrote that “direct abortion...always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” [the teaching authority of the Catholic Church].

Bill Donohue, Catholic League President; Rev. Jim Martin, America magazine; & Roland Martin, CNN Anchor | NewsBusters.orgThis, however, did not stop either Martin from obfuscating the teaching. The Jesuit priest stated he thought the death penalty is “just as important a life issue.” The CNN anchor later echoed this: “Catholics are just as vigilant when it comes to the death penalty. And so all I’m saying is, if it’s good for one, it should be good for the other.” Donohue would have none of this: “Obama not only is in favor of partial-birth abortion....When he was in the Illinois State Senate, he said, a baby born alive as the result of a botched abortion -- no health care for that kid. He found an exception to his universal health care....There’s not an abortion he couldn’t justify.”

There is one more instance that makes it clear that Roland Martin should probably recuse himself from covering Catholic issues. In March 2008, he twice equated the scandal over former Obama pastor the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to the sex scandals involving Catholic priests. If that doesn’t show that he isn’t an objective party with regards to the Catholic Church, I don’t know what does.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The death penalty is of

March 31, 2009 - 14:54 ET by motherbelt

The death penalty is of equal importance to abortion?

Is Obama anti-death penalty?

I mean for situations other than a baby born during an abortion attempt. We know where he stands on that one.

I can't even comment further without getting my duct tape!!!

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

death penalty same as abortion

March 31, 2009 - 15:40 ET by SickofLibs

This is the sickness that is liberalism - that they can 'intellectually' equate murdering a 6-month old viable fetus to putting a serial killer to death as prescribed by law.

PRIEST WASTES TIME ON OBAMA!

March 31, 2009 - 17:14 ET by reelman46

 

PRIEST WASTES TIME ON OBAMA!

Head of Holy Cross order asks Obama to rethink position on abortion
By John Thavis, Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) — The head of the Holy Cross religious order that founded
the University of Notre Dame has written to U.S. President Barack Obama
and asked him to rethink his positions on abortion and other life
issues.

U.S. Father Hugh W. Cleary, Holy Cross superior general in Rome,
said that when Obama receives an honorary degree from the Indiana
university and delivers the commencement address in May, he should take
to heart the objections of Catholics who have been scandalized by the
invitation.

CRAWFISH NOTE: Here we go again, believing that the
liberals (aka secular socialists) don’t really mean what they say,
don’t really mean how they vote and don’t really deserve the 100%
rating by the radical Planned Parenthood secularists. IF is for
children. Obama should be disinvited NOW. Either you have principles or
you don’t. Is the head of CAIR speaking at Yeshiva U? Is the ACLU head
speaking at Liberty U? For God’s sake, get up off your knees….weakness
is not respected by the modern arrogant cold ruthless secularist.

Its been 3 months…have you seen or heard of the Obamas attending church one day this year? Well, have you? Suckers.

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)

Roland Martin fits very well

March 31, 2009 - 14:57 ET by d1carter

Roland Martin fits very well in the CNN culture. He is a blowhard that bullies his way through every interview. I will not watch such a sham. Obviously, with CNN's ratings collapse many others will not as well.

The guy is a racist.

March 31, 2009 - 15:21 ET by dronetek

Back when Pala Zahn had that show about race, Martin agreed with a brain washed white woman that said, "all white people are inerintly racist".

For The Mother To Be

March 31, 2009 - 15:49 ET by PeterD

Hey Campbell, no worries on your maternity leave.  You can still abort right up to the end and then some, according to our leader, Lord Obama.

another demlib

March 31, 2009 - 15:56 ET by Robert S LaRue

rsl775

Just another in the tank liberal doesn't matter what he says he is lying about being fair he doesn't even try just says he is that is enough for the other libs.

I admit to a bias here

March 31, 2009 - 16:06 ET by KC Mulville

First, I object to the comment that America magazine is "a Catholic publication which regularly dissents from Church teaching."

America magazine's mission statement responds to that accusation. It is a Jesuit magazine. I subscribe to it, read it regularly, and I will defend it. It's a journal, which means it includes stories of all kinds. It isn't an attack vehicle for Catholic liberals. Some of it is reflection, some of it is biblical exegesis, some of it is reporting from all corners of Catholic ministry. It has movie reviews and job openings. Part of that variety is that it publishes what various Catholics are saying. I don't agree with everything said, nor does the magazine itself endorse everything published. It's a journal, and an excellent one at that.

That having been said, I did not see the segment. (I can't find it on CNN's video archive, so this is the best I can do.) But it's very hard for me to believe that a Jesuit would "team up" with a media guy to misrepresent Catholic doctrine. If he did it, OK, he was wrong. It wouldn't be the first time a Jesuit screwed up, and I speak from experience here. But with all due respect, Matthew, I'm freely going to admit my personal bias, and give the Jesuit the benefit of the doubt. Does that display my bias about the Jesuit? I sure hope so. 

However, as for the issue itself, we need to make an important distinction. A lot of Catholics (including me, by the way) oppose the death penalty, but opposition to the death penalty is not an official teaching of the church. Opposition to abortion is, indeed, a teaching of the church. If Roland Martin tried to present opposition to the death penalty as a church teaching on par with abortion, that is incorrect.

Let me try it this way.

  • I'm against the death penalty. I oppose it on moral grounds. But if you ask me whether it's in the Constitution, I freely admit that it is. I may consider it immoral, but it's definitely constitutional.
  • In the same way, I consider both the death penalty and abortion to be immoral philosophically, but abortion has always been banned by church teaching, where the death penalty hasn't been. Philosophically, in my opinion, they're both wrong. But as a matter of church teaching, one is banned while the other isn't. They're not equal teachings.

If Roland Martin presented them as equal teachings, he's plain wrong. Both Bill Donohue and Fr. Martin, SJ should have corrected the impression immediately.

The transcript

March 31, 2009 - 16:35 ET by Matthew Balan

You can check out CNN's version here, but here's my transcript, which I decided not to include since my post was already pretty long. I have boldfaced the key parts.

ROLAND MARTIN: (University of Notre Dame’s Fight Song plays) Familiar song, huh? That’s Notre Dame’s fight song, a huge part of a school steeped in tradition, especially Catholic tradition. Tonight, we ask, does President Barack Obama have a Catholic problem? The new president is booked as Notre Dame’s commencement speaker this May, but he’s not wanted by some. The issue: should the nation’s preeminent Catholic university welcome a president whose record on abortion and stem cell research conflicts with Church teaching?

Joining me now is William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, and the Reverend Jim Martin, a Jesuit priest who’s culture editor of America magazine, a weekly Catholic publication. Now, Bill, look, exit polls show that the Notre Dame community voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. We also saw that Catholics nationwide, by a 10-point margin, voted for Obama. So, who’s out of step here? Is it some Catholics or is it Notre Dame simply recognizing Catholics are supporting this president?

WILLIAM DONOHUE, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC LEAGUE: Well, Bush actually won the practicing Catholic vote, and it was about a five-point split on the others -- (unintelligible crosstalk). 80 percent who voted for it on the economy. But, look, the bishops put out a statement in 2004 saying any person who’s going to get an award or get a platform at a Catholic institution shouldn’t be in contrary to some of its major teachings. Now, abortion, like racism, is intrinsically evil. Liberal Catholics would be against a racist getting an award. They’re not against giving an award to somebody who is pro-abortion, and that’s a shame on them.

R. MARTIN: Jim --

REV. JIM MARTIN, CULTURE EDITOR, "AMERICA:" Well, when I say --

R. MARTIN: I think he’s talking to you. He’s talking about liberal Catholics.

REV. J. MARTIN: Yeah. I mean, I want to say I’m pro-life, like a lot of liberal Catholics. But I also think that they’re clearly not honoring Barack Obama for his positions on abortion. They’re honoring for being president of the United States, and I think it’s very appropriate to honor the president of the United States. You know, Catholics didn’t have trouble when people like Dick Cheney would speak at universities and other political figures. So, I do think that, you know, abortion is the preeminent sort of problem in the Catholic Church, in terms of its issues, but I don’t think it’s the only issue that we should be looking at.

R. MARTIN: Well, here’s the deal here, Bill. You’ve had Presidents Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush -- both Bushes, father and the son -- all have spoken at Notre Dame. And one of the critical issues when it came to Bush speaking [in] 2001 [at Notre Dame] -- death penalty. I have heard Pope Benedict, as well as Pope John Paul II, talk about the death penalty, and they rank it just right up there with abortion. But you flew on Air Force One with the president. So, explain to me how you can sit here and criticize, when it comes to Obama and abortion, but you were right [unintelligible] the death penalty when the Catholic Church is dead set against that.

DONOHUE: The Catholic Church doesn’t regard the death penalty as intrinsically evil. It’s presumptively opposed to it. It does leave the door open. It’s not the exact same thing. Obama not only is in favor of partial-birth abortion. He was critical of the Supreme Court on this issue. When he was in the Illinois State Senate, he said, a baby born alive as the result of a botched abortion -- no health care for that kid. He found an exception to his universal health care. This guy is off of the charts -- 100 percent record with NARAL. Planned Parenthood loves this man. If this guy doesn’t disqualify himself at a Catholic institution, nobody does.

R. MARTIN: Jim, is Bill dancing around the issue? Because Obama, when he was in the state senate -- he voted to get rid of the death penalty, supported Governor Jim Ryan then. So, what about this whole notion of, well, death penalty is little bit different than abortion?

REV. J. MARTIN: Bill never dances around any issues. I think that’s important to say. No, I think death penalty is just as important a life issue. I think a lot of Catholics say that, you know, abortion is really the only issue. But, you know, death penalty -- let’s face it -- is a life issue, too. So, I think it’s inconsistent to say that you can have someone who’s against abortion, but you cannot have someone who is against the death penalty. You know, I mean, you really have to be consistent with these things.

R. MARTIN: Bill, don’t -- don’t you really think the Catholic Church, though, has a problem, in terms of when its members have embraced this president, in terms of at the polls, where all of a sudden, you’re saying, hey, he should not come to Notre Dame?

DONOHUE: Look, I do think he belongs at Notre Dame to give a speech, to be on a symposium, to be a panelist, to be a discussant. I’m all in favor of that. They’re giving him the commencement address, which is divisive to the Catholic community. The ultimate losers are the kids, the parents, and the grandparents on their special day. And not only that, they’re giving him an award. So, this is kind of an in-your-face situation. President Jenkins, I’m sure, is a good man. He made a lousy decision on this.

R. MARTIN: Who’s driving this? You think students there, or do you think outside forces are driving this whole conversation for the president and Notre Dame?

REV. J. MARTIN: Who’s driving the conversation? I think outside forces. I mean, I think, you know, Notre Dame -- it’s traditional, when you give a commencement address, that you get an honorary degree. I think that’s part of tradition. And I think, as Father Ted Hesburgh said -- the former president of Notre Dame -- Barack may not change Notre Dame, but Notre Dame may change Barack. So, that’s what I’m hoping.

R. MARTIN: (laughs) Bill’s not happy about that one --

DONOHUE: You have five bishops and one cardinal already against him, all right? There’s nobody lining up the other way. You’re not going to dialogue with Obama. He’s already made up his mind. There’s not an abortion he couldn’t justify.

R. MARTIN: Well, again, though, I like how you talk about the abortion piece. But, again, Catholics are just as vigilant when it comes to the death penalty. And so all I’m saying is, if it’s good for one, it should be good for the other.

DONOHUE: It’s not intrinsically evil, like racism. The liberal Catholics have to say, I don’t want a racist and I don’t want somebody who is pro-abortion. They will always say no to the racist getting an award. When it comes to being pro-abortion, they say, let’s go with it, buddy.

R. MARTIN: But life is life. Bill Donahue, I certainly appreciate it. Jim Martin, thank you so very much. Thank you very much for a great conversation. 

The thing that jumps out at

March 31, 2009 - 17:00 ET by motherbelt

The thing that jumps out at me here is this:

We also saw that Catholics nationwide, by a 10-point margin, voted for
Obama. So, who’s out of step here?

Well there you have it, the gospel according to Roland Martin.  Those who disagree are "out of step."  Catholics, must, at all cost, remain "in step."  

Is this something that the heirarchy of the Church will become involved in?  I doubt it.  But it pains me that President Obama will have a notch in his belt that a Catholic University invited him to speak.   

 

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson

Thanks, Matt

March 31, 2009 - 22:17 ET by KC Mulville

Looking at the transcript, it makes more sense. Fr. Martin is a liberal, to be sure. That doesn't disqualify him from being a Catholic in good standing, of course. It just means it'll be more difficult for him. ... I'm kidding! ...

I agree with a lot of Catholics that abortion isn't the only issue in the world. But that doesn't mean that you blow off abortion when it comes up.

One constant here: Roland Martin doesn't know what he's talking about.

K C

April 1, 2009 - 08:18 ET by kilrod

Mr. Mullville

 You are an intelligent, well educated, reasoned man. Your post reflect your reasoned intelligence and you are well respected and rightly so.

 Abortion is'nt the only issue. Untill abortion is made illegal this nation will not prosper, nor be blessed. We are in the process of reaping what we have sown as we speak.

   Ask this question, and apply logic and common sense. What behavior has caused the destruction of the most human life in the last 36 years?? Is it car wrecks, drunk driving, smoking, racism, war, murder, airplane crashes, etc. etc.. The answer is abortion, 50,000,000(thats fifty million) dead babies. Abortion is the foundation of, the enabler of, the destruction of our moral values, our families and our courage to stand up for what is good and right and decent. Abortion is the cheap way out of taking responsibility for selfish, self serving activities thus encouraging promiscuous immorality that destroys self respect, self worth and human dignity and encourages adultry and divorce which has destroyed the family unit and family values. A nation that embraces legal abortion and all that it leads to will eventually embrace socialism/communism as we are seeing right now in this country. A nation that does not respect and protect God created human life and stand up for it, will not stand up for what is good and right and decent, and will lose the liberty and freedom once held so dear. That is so sad.

   kilrod

Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier

Thank you, kilrod

April 1, 2009 - 12:07 ET by KC Mulville

There's a lot of discussion about that. Is abortion a symptom of moral decay, or is it the cause?

After such praise, I regret disagreeing with you here. Abortion is the leader of the problem, but I still think the core of the problem is a number of philosophical shifts that took place in America and Europe thoughout the middle of the twentieth century, and reverberates today. I'm willing to argue that the fear, hatred, corruption, and nihilism of the totalitarian states ... the Nazis, Japanese military, communists, etc. ... left the free world (the West) utterly revolted by collectivists.

In response, however, we in the West have unwisely rushed in the other direction. Destructive individualism reigns in the West, and in my opinion, it's an individualism that rejects any moral connection to one another. Abortion, I believe, represents the ultimate act of individualism: where a mother denies the personhood of her child. Abortion activists call it the ultimate act of freedom. But I argue that freedom and individualism are not the same thing.  

As I've said elsewhere, I deny that we only have two alternatives (collectivism or individualism). The human person has a multitude of dimensions, where one's individuality doesn't conflict with one's role in relationships or society. We're simply more complex than that.

I'm an ex-Jesuit, but I still follow, reflect, and contemplate what that spirtuality means in my life. And Jesuit spirituality rejects those one-dimensional attitudes. Believe it or not, the chief virtue of Jesuit spirituality and American history is the same: freedom. What does it mean to be free? In neither spirtiuality nor history does freedom restrict us to absolute individualism.

Kidding?

March 31, 2009 - 16:43 ET by Kelly72

Who does he think he's kidding?  Himself?

"On some issues, I might be called a liberal -- on others, a conservative."

Really?  Well, I know that the public has been treated to a multitude of left-skewed comments and a few far-left diatribes from this man on various issues.  So on which issues is he genuinely conservative?

Once again, we see CNN's version of "no bias, no bull".  Extreme bias and heaping piles of bull...

 

He disparages pro-lifers

March 31, 2009 - 16:55 ET by Kat Outta the Bag

Yet when you read his syndicated newspaper columns, Martin has often professed to be a Christian and the fact that his wife is a Christian minister.  What's up with that, Roland?

What's up is that he, like Obama, is a pretend Christian.

March 31, 2009 - 21:38 ET by CKA in Red State USA

He and Obama can profess all they want about being Christian.

But if we measure them from the fruit that hangs from their tree, do we see any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance?

Where's the love and gentleness and goodness, if you will, from supporting the death of humanity's most defenseless?

To compare the unborn to murderers, rapists and others shows how dark and hard these two men's hearts and the hearts of those who ally themselves with these two, are.

It shows how morally and intellectually and spiritually vacant these two men and their allies are.

Do the derive joy from supporting infanticide?

Does it give them peace?

What hangs from their trees are the dead, aborted babies whose deaths they explicitly supported and continue to support.

Let the man disparage Christians and anyone else who stand to defend the defenseless.

He will get to answer for his actions, as will abortionist-in-chief Obama.

On how they bullied and promoted the death of unborn and just-born babies.

On how they sold their souls to the devil to what end: fame, adulation, what?

CKA

March 31, 2009 - 21:54 ET by Cool Arrow

Roland's wife is an ordained minister.  She must be so proud of the hoops through which her husband will jump just to keep his face on Obama News Network.

Hanging on by a thread now.  CNN dumped Hughley, and Roland's afraid CNN's done with him too.


LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

You really appreciate Campbell Brown even more when someone

April 1, 2009 - 04:29 ET by Rush Fan

as far left as Roland Martin fills in for her. I can't wait for Campbell to return. At least with Campbell and with CNN as well, you get fair, balanced and honest reporting with No Bias, No Bull. (Sorry. It's my first April Fools joke.)

--------------------------------------------------------

“The left -- you people, you Democrats -- you are creating a monster that you will not be able to control forever.  You will ultimately regret what you are doing just like the media will ultimately regret its sacrifice of reason, its abandonment of its primary purpose.” ~ Rush Limbaugh