In various forums, people have been comparing the Pope's meeting with Obama to the Notre Dame scandal. But this comparison is fatally flawed. There is a huge difference between (1) a Catholic college causing worldwide scandal & violating a directive of the bishops (From the 2004 USCCB statement: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions") by inviting & conferring an honorary law degree on a pro-abortion president (who, by the way, feels the "world's most innocent & helpless persons" - the unborn - should have no legal rights whatsoever) and giving him a platform to speak to impressionable students, even in defiance of the area's bishop, and (2) the Pope agreeing to meet with Obama diplomatically as head of the U.S. without giving him an award or a public platform to speak to impressionable young persons. The former situation honors the man, the latter honors the office of the president.
And we can be fairly sure that when Obama meets with the Pope, the President won't be wearing an inscription symbolic of dedication to the Blessed Virgin Mary while affirming his radical pro-abortion stance. Also, the two of them will each be speaking - the Pope won't simply be listening to Obama's rhetoric. Further, we feel confident that elderly priests on the grounds won't be arrested and carted away for defending life along with other pro-lifers. Likewise, we hope that the Pope would dismiss the idea of "common ground" on the killing of babies as fast as he would reject the notion of finding "common ground" concerning toleration of racial prejudice. Obviously, both should be rejected outright. Furthermore, it would seem out of character that a Pope would give Obama the (embarrassingly) laudatory treatment that Notre Dame's Fr. Jenkins accorded our President. Nor will Obama walk away from his meeting with the Pope carrying an honorary degree. Finally, while the President's presence at Notre Dame was in no way obligatory, his presence in world diplomatic relations obviously is necessary. Who cannot see that there is a world of difference between these two events? Or is this just one more attempt by liberals to turn a situation to their advantage?
[7/9]
Posts
