The administrators at Notre Dame had it in mind to foster tolerance and diversity with those of differing opinions. Among the graduating class a few students had Obama's circle logo pasted on their caps leaving no doubt what was in their minds.
Outside in protest chanting, Benedict's flock
No you can't, no you can't
Inside Obama's friends chant and mock
Yes we can, yes we can
Wisdom's answer notwithstanding, only common sense need answer the mockery that was the appearance, the address and the awarding of an honorary degree to Barack Obama. Under the banner of bringing a new voice of liberalism to a university, has anyone sat down and done the math?
America's universities are already strongly under the sway of liberalism and have been so for better than a quarter of a century. No diplomacy needed here just the facts. There has been no lack of liberal ideology in most of America's halls of learning and real diversity would be allowing a conservative view anyplace at all. Notre Dame's administration would have come off as far more honest if they allowed Ann Coulter to address the graduating class.
Millions of bloggers worldwide have proven that everyone has an opinion and almost 300 op-ed articles later I must agree that forming an opinion is as easy as spitting. Much harder is forming a question that will provoke someone to carefully peruse, and pensively weigh not just the views but the consequences and outcomes of specific behaviors. Here are just three such questions for Notre Dame, for Barack Obama, for America.
In his campaign Obama promised to bring a divided America together again. Not long ago as he jumped across Europe, Barack Obama derided America by proclaiming that at times we had been 'divisive.' Only a few short weeks later, he raised and created a division in America's most prestigious Catholic university that everyone could see coming but he did nothing to stop. After lauding Father Ted Hesburgh for his 150 honorary degrees and noting that he had only one, the question for Barack Obama is simple.
Can you be proud of a degree that not only was not earned but came at the price of dividing students, a church and a nation and leaving them hurt and visibly shaken? Where is the promise of healing and unity you so glibly broadcast during your campaign? Would it be unfair to say that after campaign promises that are now seen as 'more of the same' that what happened May 17, 2009 is more like 'the shame at Notre Dame?'
The second question is if the emphasis must now pass from abortion to poverty, health care and peace through diplomacy have you taken the Pelosian view that someone who is never born can't come to poverty? Could that idea be extended to health care as in the dead have no health problems? Finally there is no need to engage friend or foe in diplomatic discourse if they have never been born. Is this how the emphasis passes from abortion to the social urgencies that are now alone accepted as politically correct?
The finally question must be this. Did you notice that in the entirety of your address to the fledglings and august administrators of Notre Dame that you never used the word 'life' or 'living' in reference to the unborn?
The only words we heard were opinion, viewpoint, the other view et al. Are you aware that throughout history when an ideology such as Marxism or Nazism became the chief interest of a people that those causes also began to disregard life? Millions of lives later can the world having barely recovered from such ideologies afford to embark again on a dark journey down this slippery slope?
And if it is truly the administration's plan to work to reduce the reasons a women gets an abortion, what has your administration done to affect these changes? As one of your first acts in office you brought FOCA to the top of your agenda thus removing any judicial intervention in the matter of abortion. States' rights have been suspended on the matter and the hideousness of partial birth abortions has raised its ugly head once again. What if anything have you done to convince even one woman to consider not aborting? As it pertains to the pummeling of the pro-life movement and the deepest sentiments of millions of Americans, forget 'yes we can' and get down to the raw truth which is 'yes you did.'
Prior to and during the event attended even by protestor Jane Roe of Roe v Wade and a host of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers, many arrests were made. Among those arrested was former Presidential candidate, Ambassador Alan Keyes. Every voice was ignored; some were silenced. One protestor carried a sign that said 'God is Pro-life.' In so far as this is true even God's voice was silent on that propitious day. Don't count on it, for here is yet one more voice.
Whether it is in willingness or out of necessity, all Americans must accept the civil authority invested in the President. Others also accept the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope and yet others the authority of the administration and faculty of Notre Dame. There is yet one authority I must always revert to without apology. I can quote the words time and time again and they too raise a question at least among some who still have 'the ears to hear.' Here is the quote once again, parenthetical emphasis mine.
After receiving and blessing the little children that his disciples tried to shoo away Jesus said "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones (doesn't un-born qualify as 'little') which believe in me, it were better for him (what would be the worse?) that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt 18:6) No tolerance here, no diversity and nothing politically correct, just an ultimatum from the ultimate authority.
Copyright ©2009 Rev. Michael Bresciani