| Obama to visit another Catholic institution |
| by Margaret Cabaniss |
| 6/25/09 |
|
Yesterday the Vatican confirmed that President Obama will be meeting with the pope on a trip to Italy next month:
This seems straightforward enough -- which is why I was surprised to read the following from Michael Sean Winters at the America blog:
I can't speak for CNS or CNA, but I'm at a loss to see why this news should be shocking to anyone. The pope and president routinely receive heads of state, and often from those with whom they have disagreements -- but never has it been implied that such visits constitute "honors" or "platforms," per the USCCB's guidelines. It's simply statesmanship and hospitality. Meanwhile, Obama was given an honorary degree in law at Notre Dame -- a field in which he has done much to advance abortion-rights legislation. Even if one thinks such an event was acceptable, it seems a willful sort of blindness to deny that there is any difference between a public celebration of one man's particular career and a private meeting between equals. I'm glad that Obama is meeting with the pope -- if anyone has the potential to reach the president on the issue of the sanctity of life, Benedict certainly tops the list. It's an opportunity that all Catholics can be glad of, while praying for its success.
Readers have left 10 comments. I just wanted to say that you are right, Margaret. The Pope should meet with President Obama. After all, both are heads of states that have diplomatic relations with each other, and I think that a high-level dialogue between the leader of the free world and the most well-known religious leader in the world is very much in order. Now I know that there are some people who are pulling their hairs right now at the very thought of Obama being in the Papal presence as they have his recent appearance in Notre Dame and Georgetown, but different matter altogether. Here the Pope is holding an audience with Obama as he would any visiting head of state to the Vatican, not bestowing an honor to him as Notre Dame did at its commencement ceremonies. I am also hopeful (and I know that I will get into trouble for this) that this meeting will cool some of the tempers that have flared up on the part of some Catholics in the U.S. over the Notre Dame flap and for the Obama Administration to moderate its pro-abortion stance. One can only hope! I would also remind the reader that the late great Pope John Paul II met with President Clinton on several occaisions. Clinton as we all remember was pro-choice and had some differences with the Pope, but despite it all U.S.-Vatican relations went on smoothly. Written by Stuart Why can't people like Michael Sean Winters get it right? The problem with the president going to Notre Dame was the fact that a Catholic institution chose to bestow honors on a vocally pro-choice president. Period. It has nothing to do with sharing a stage with the president, meeting with him, or even having him give a speech. It's absolutely a good and helpful thing for the Pope and president to meet - because they are heads of state, and because the Pope is the most significant religious leader in the western world. Written by Zoe Margaret is quite correct in her spotting the fallacy of false analogy. Holy Father is neither awarding the Wun an LL.D. from the Lateran University, nor enrolling the same into the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre. And The Vatican isn't Grauman's Chinese Theatre. Written by Sid Absolutely right, Margaret. We should all head over and post comments on MSW's post! Written by John I would also remind the reader that the late great Pope John Paul II met with President Clinton on several occaisions. — StuartForget Clinton -- JPII met with that old goat Castro. Winters' phony mock-indignation is weak, boy. Written by Todd M. Aglialoro Mr. Winters comments are obviously wrong. Obvious, that is, to those who understand just why the president's appearance at Notre Dame raised such a flurry of objection. Whether it is obvious to Mr. Winters is open to discussion but it seems quite clear that it won't be obvious to many of his readers; it will in fact seem quite reasonable. It's like the concept of plausible deniability only in this case it is plausible rationalization. The statements don't have to be true to be effective. Written by Ender Winters writes: "Notre Dame, of course, has a tradition of conferring an honorary degree upon every new president that pre-dates presidential visits to the Holy See." Wrong. Clinton was passed over. Jenkins could have gone either way with impunity. Written by meg People forget that while the Pope is a spiritual leader, he is also a head of State and has to conduct relations with other States (and none of this nonsense of "I am not talking to you, so there!"). There are always frictions between states and meetings of Heads of State are needed. Also, the Vatican has several items in its agenda, items that can be advanced faster if the US President feels kindly towards them. Now, if you forgive me my cynicism, the bestowing of honorary degrees is part and parcel of the diplomacy that a Univesity carries out. Consider it as payment for later favors, or for good publicity in the world at large, or even for a large monetary donation. Honorary degrees can be considered to belong to the University's assets, to be invested where it will do most good. (Living near a University where the highest paid employee is the football coach, above any of the faculty, above even the President of the University has made me cynical about the whole business). Written by Adriana Mr. Winters is comparing apples and oranges. Mr. H http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/  Written by Mr. H |
|
 |
