Obama at Notre Dame: The Long Term Effect

I have held off commenting on Obama at Notre Dame. I had a few things to say in the run up, but I've been reading the reaction from a number of commentators. I think the award for most perceptive analysis goes to George Weigel, who discusses Obama's attempt to re-define true American Catholicism. The money quote:

"What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are."

As Father Z puts it: "Who needs The Tudors? This was like watching Henry suborn the English Church away from the interference of Rome. . . As one person put it, 'America has a new pope!'"

If you think this is far-fetched, read Hans Kung's worshipful words about Obama expressing the wish that Obama were pope instead of Benedict XVI. For the Catholic Left, politics is everything and theology is a trivial matter. Yes, they really want to follow Obama rather than Benedict XVI. Obama represents a serious threat to the unity of the Church and an actual, heretical, false messiah-figure who is perfectly capable of leading many astray.

Here are two excerpts from the speech, which, I believe, sum up the essence of the Obama position and the Obama problem.

"As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."

And another:

"Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable."

Notice what Obama has done here. In response to a doctor who sounded like a likely convert - someone who just needed to be stroked a little in order to be reeled in - Obama changed some words. Not his position. He just took out some inflamatory rhetoric designed to demonize his opponents. But he did not change his position one iota. He does not want dialogue; he wants converts. His offer is that he will respect you and not call you names if you promise not to oppose what he is doing. And what he is doing is the bidding of the most extreme, pro-abortion groups in America.

In the second quote, he winks at his base just to let them know that he is not getting swayed by all the Catholic atmosphere at ND and giving up the fight. Oh, no, the differences are irreconcilable. In that case, what hope is there in dialogue? When Randall Terry says this, he is a narrow-minded, intolerant, violent fundamentalist. When President Obama says it, he is wise, conciliatory, realistic and nuanced. How must Fr. Jenkins have felt to have his plea for "dialogue" thrown back in his face? After all he risked in inviting Obama, now the President just says his views and those of the Catholic Church are "irreconcilable."

So the message is, given that the two views are irreconcilable, are you going to get with the program and stop insisting that abortion must be banned, in which case you can be regarded as "reasonable," "nuanced," "inclined to dialogue" and "realistic?" Or are you going to act as if the debate were still going on and as if there was still a possibility of change? Are you with me or with the evildoers, he might as well have said.

UPDATE:
OK, Jon Shields has said it far more reasonably and calmly than I did. He deftly dissects Obama's contradictory statements on Roe v. Wade and asks for a philosophically coherent argument from a President who is, after all, a constitutional law professor. Read him and you may understand why people like me get so upset with Obama.