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 In his first week as president, Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy, lifting restrictions that disallowed the allocation of federal funds to international organizations that support or perform abortions.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.

    I have found it rather intriguing that those who most adamantly raise the mantle of tolerance are often more judgmental than those they skewer with barbs for the ‘sin’ of intolerance. They tolerate any act or idea as long as it falls within the strict parameters of their narrow perspective. They often judge the institutions they disdain by the reprobates, whom they would otherwise extol as examples of some false notion of liberty that calls good, evil and evil, good, rather than those the institution esteems as examples of heroism and virtue. When one blindly observes only the morally challenged, judging individuals, institutions or events with any objective standard becomes an impossible feat. For this reason, those who most loudly proclaim themselves open-minded often close their minds to anything that resembles truth since such a realization shatters their hedonistic worldview.
    The case of Father Maciel provides a perfect example of intolerance exhibited by the self-proclaimed tolerant. (For the record, I am in no way directly affiliated with the Legionaries of Christ nor Regnum Christi.) Father Maciel was a fallen man with weaknesses like any other man. Yes, he sinned. That is nothing new. No man is perfect. Every man sins, and even the strongest, most knowledgeable man can commit the most grievous offenses against God and Man. Obviously, Father Maciel’s acts merit condemnation, but we must hope that he repented before his death. Furthermore, we must refrain from condemning an entire organization for the failings of its founder. The Church bears no more guilt for Father Maciel’s sins than She is for mine, though She bears the weight of those sins as Her Bridegroom bore the weight of our sins in the form of the cross.
    These same principles aptly apply to the historical ignorance of Bishop Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X, who foolishly ignores the evidence that six million Jews died at the hand of Hitler’s Nazi regime. (Ironically, many of those who have condemned Bishop Williamson are themselves guilty of ignoring the genocides perpetrated by Communist regimes throughout the twentieth century that dwarf in size and scope the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime during World War II. Furthermore, even the most studious often ignore that Hitler’s atheistic regime murdered an additional four to six million people, most of whom were Christians, and he fully intended the extermination of both Jews and Christians from the face of the earth.) Frankly, Bishop Williamson is not the only fool guilty of historical ignorance. Nor will he be the last fool to deny an historical reality. Regarding the lifting of his excommunication, Bishop Williamson was excommunicated for disobedience, not stupidity. The lifting of his excommunication by the Pope is conditional on Williamson’s repentance of his disobedience and a promise of future obedience. Nor did the Pope, by lifting Williamson’s excommunication, grant him the full use of his faculties as a Bishop. When journalists or authors malign the Church on the basis of false notions, willful ignorance or plain laziness, they demonstrate no less folly than the foolish bishop who denies the historical reality of the Holocaust.
    Nor can any rational man say that the Pope or any other member of the Church is free from folly since like the rest he is subject to the same fallen human condition. The Pope is not infallible in matters of administration, governance nor diplomacy, and I am certain that he understands his weaknesses better than any ignorant journalist who distrusts Papal authority base on false historical and philosophical premises. It is a testament to the truth espoused by the Church that She has survived two thousand years unchanged in the essentials despite the sins of those entrusted with the Shepherd’s staff. It is, after all, Man’s fallen nature that necessitates the institution of the Church. The Church simply provides the remedy for sin not the cause.

    Science, philosophy, and theology all pursue what ‘is’. These three pursuits seek objective truth in different realms of limited human understanding. The scientist seeks knowledge of the physical world in which we live. The philosopher strives to understand the meaning and purpose of life through reason. And the theologian contemplates the mysteries of God and God’s relationship with Man as revealed in Sacred Scripture. Each discipline compliments the others while pointing to the next in logical succession. There is no dispute between Faith and Reason except when one side or the other becomes unreasonable.

      In the case of the debate surrounding evolution, for example, both sides to some extent present poorly reasoned arguments largely because one can only extrapolate the knowledge sought from the smallest fragments of the parchment that is the earth’s very long history, while speculating as to the context surrounding those fragments. Evolution is the speculative subjective opinion of some scientists based primarily on their interpretation of the evidence found in the fossil record. 

      Although, based on reasonable evidence, I suspect that the theory of evolution (i.e. macro-evolution) is poorly conceived, I do not discount the possibility that the basic principles asserted by evolutionary science could be true, however slim that possibility may seem at this point in the discussion. Regardless, such a theory, if viewed objectively, does not discount the existence of God as most atheists presume when asserting that since we observe seemingly random changes, 'God does not exist.' This assertion leads extremists on both sides of the argument to see an apparent contradiction between faith and science. The atheist wrongly applies a philosophical perspective to a scientific theory, while the scriptural literalist wrongly applies theological principles based on literal rather than spiritual and allegorical interpretations of the Genesis account of creation. Both groups impose a perspective that crosses the boundaries between disciplines essentially rendering legitimate scientific debate meaningless in the public arena.