The headline appearing in newspapers 17 March 2009 will read, ‘Notre Dame Honors President Obama’. The implication, Notre Dame, as an institution, supports the president’s agenda. Whether intentional or not, many Catholics and non-Catholics will likely perceive Obama’s reception of an honorary Doctorate of Laws as a validation of his policies by an institution that claims Catholic identity. Notre Dame’s pending presentation of an honorary doctorate to the president creates scandal for Catholics because the majority of Obama’s acts and policy proposals blatantly contradict Catholic teaching.
    The most egregious of Obama’s violations of natural law and Catholic teaching is his unabashed support and promotion of the culture of death. In his first week as president, Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy, lifting restrictions that disallowed the allocation of federal funds to international organizations that support or perform abortions.
    A month later, the president lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. A move that guarantees the use of taxpayer dollars for the destruction of human embryos that may otherwise be adopted as snowflake babies. (Please note that the Church has not yet definitively addressed the adoption of frozen embryos conceived by immoral, unnatural means.)
    Furthermore, Obama has expressed a desire to eliminate the conscience clause that allows medical professionals the right to refuse participation in the facilitation of abortion or contraceptives due to moral or religious objections. The elimination of the conscience clause will effectively force medical professionals with moral objections from the profession. It will also effectively remove the Catholic Church from the healthcare industry in the United States because Catholics cannot in good conscience enable the slaughter of innocents. President Obama has his priorities; facilitating abortion is near the top of his list.
    Contrary to Catholic teaching, the President also seeks to combat the AIDS pandemic by funding the distribution of condoms. The folly of this pseudo-solution is self-evident. The promotion of condom use encourages the behavior that aids the spread of HIV.
    The Harvard Center for Population and Development concluded after twenty-five years of research that monogamy and abstinence prevent the spread of HIV, while condom use exacerbates the AIDS pandemic, demonstrating the Catholic Church’s wisdom in demanding a restoration of sexual morality rather than condoning with condoms the behavior that transmits the virus.
    Additionally, evidence from Uganda supports the aforementioned conclusion. A Cambridge University study shows that Uganda has seen a 70% decline in HIV infections since stressing abstinence and monogamy in the 1990s. In contrast, those nations stressing condom use have seen an explosion in HIV cases. For example, according to UNAIDS, nearly 39% of Botswana’s adult population was infected with HIV in 2007, and several other African nations have infection rates exceeding 30%. (Coincidently, the same studies show that circumcision more effectively slows the spread of HIV than condom use.)
    The evidence and common sense indicate that the most effective means to end the AIDS pandemic is a revolutionary change in behavior rather than promoting condoms as the first line of defense. Unfortunately, President Obama’s faith in condoms, which descends from the same flawed, destructive philosophies that dramatically devalue the dignity of the human person and human life, will exacerbate the problem of AIDS.
    President Obama’s governing philosophy and economic policies also violate the, far too often ill defined or oft forgotten, principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. Informed by the Marxist ideology of his mentors, Obama proposes and implements policies that procure, illegitimately, power and responsibility rightfully belonging to ‘individuals and intermediary bodies’ (CCC, 1894). Obama favors central planning and broad government control, which ultimately denies human freedom and individual initiative.
    Furthermore, President Obama’s rhetoric intentionally incites class envy, creating a straw man –– e.g. AIG and GM –– eliciting populist anger that targets private individuals and industry, providing the rationale for the largest expansion of federal power in United States’ history. Although less disconcerting than Obama’s open promotion of a culture of death, Catholics must also address the substantial issues arising from the president’s adherence socialist tenets, contradicting human dignity and freedom.
    Unfortunately, Notre Dame’s president, Fr. John Jenkins, fails to realize that in the matter of honoring President Obama intentions are irrelevant. The clichéd axiom, that in politics ‘perception is reality,’ aptly applies in this situation. Notre Dame is providing President Obama a platform and an opportunity to use a Catholic institution for little more than a publicity stunt.
    Regarding the historical nature of this presidency, I fear that too many Americans, including many Catholics, fail to consider the content of President Obama’s character because they refuse to look more deeply than a relatively superficial historical moment, compared to the potentially devastating impact of the man’s agenda.
    I sincerely hope and pray that Fr. Jenkins reconsiders Notre Dame’s imprudent invitation to President Obama that causes a significant scandal for the university and the Catholic Church.

    It is an unfortunate truth that liberals propagandize much more adeptly than their conservative counterparts. This truth became painfully evident after President Obama’s speech before a joint session of Congress during the Republican response presented by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. President Obama practiced the fine art showmanship on the most grandiose stage in the secular world and presented a socialist plan couched in conservative rhetoric. Governor Jindal, though often recognize by his peers as the smartest man in the room, presented, with little visible enthusiasm, a lackluster speech written as a teacher lecturing grade school students.
    First, Republicans must set the stage. The president spoke on a spectacular stage standing before the most powerful men and women in the nation. Governor Jindal stood a solitary figure in the middle of a foyer speaking to a camera and looking the part of a brutally beaten man though he had not yet spoken. The stage was set and the debate over before Jindal opened his mouth. President Obama, despite his ill-conceived ideas, won the rhetorical battle before the Governor’s rebuttal commenced. First, give the Governor a podium; his hands seemed lost throughout his speech. Second, if the rule exists that dictates that the person rebutting a presidential speech must do so without an audience, ignore that rule. Give the man an audience. Even the best orator performs better with live feedback, and the president had a captive audience chomping at the bit of every asinine and contradictory statement.
    President Obama’s speechwriters masterfully write intelligent sounding speeches while simultaneously exploiting the ignorance of those who blindly follow a mythological figure. The president woos the public with meaningless rhetoric and flowery flattery, and he hopes that the public will largely ignore his actions until too late.
    The contrast between Obama’s and Jindal’s speeches is stark on many levels. The Republican speechwriters routinely assume the stupidity and ignorance of the audience. Unfortunate politicians, such as Governors Jindal, look foolish when they address adults as if speaking to children. Write intelligent speeches. Assume that those listening are smarter than fifth graders. Support principled assertions with concrete, specific and relevant examples. Ronald Reagan treated every speech as an educational opportunity. Conservatives today must do the same.
    Republican handlers must also more adequately understand and utilize the strengths and talents of Republican politicians. Governor Jindal’s reputedly rapid intellect seemed lost in the haze of mediocre rhetoric during his rapidly delivered rebuttal. Unleash his mind. If he is the smartest man in the room, unleash him. Let him speak impromptu if it suits him. He would have better served the conservative Republican cause by responding directly to the president’s speech and its obvious contradictions than he did in his unappealing prepared remarks.
    Governor Jindal’s half-hearted smile when he concluded his remarks betrayed the knowledge that he had inadequately answered the president’s speech. Republicans asked that Jindal fill a tall order, and he fell well short. Fortunately, he is young. He has the talent, the intellect and the principles neatly packaged in a man of small stature; hopefully, he will learn from recent experience and grow as politician and a man.