Former US Ambassador to the Vatican Says “No” to Notre Dame and Obama
Pro-Life Harvard Law professor (I didn’t know they had those at Harvard!), Ann Glendon, was to appear at Notre Dame to accept the Laetare Medal for recognition of outstanding service to the Roman Catholic church and society. She was to give a speech upon receiving the medal, but Obama’s invitation to speak at the school on the same day seemed to be the straw that broke the camel’s back and Ann Glendon has declined.
Here is her letter:
April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre DameDear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”
• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
Ann, I wouldn’t really appreciate being used as a pawn or an excuse for Notre Dame to go against its doctrines and the oath it took on behalf of the Church. I would back out if I also felt like I was being used without my consent. I also think that it is very valiant of Ann to stand on principle and not back down from her convictions.
Ann Glendon served as US Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.
Liberals have been protesting speakers for a very long time so I don’t want to hear anything from them when it comes to double standards (examples such as Tancredo, Rick Warren, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, and so on and so forth).
Caroline Kennedy Denied by Vatican!
If this isn’t sweet justice, then I don’t know what is – but I sure do love Happy Endings!
The Vatican has blocked the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as US ambassador, according to reports.
Vatican sources told Il Giornale that their support for abortion disqualified Ms Kennedy and other Roman Catholics President Barack Obama had been seeking to appoint.
Mr Obama was reportedly seeking to reward John F Kennedy’s daughter, who publicly gave her support to his election bid. She had been poised to replace Hillary Clinton as New York senator, but dropped out amid criticism that she lacked enough experience for the job.
I guess the Pope, like you know, like figured out, that like Caroline, and like the rest of you know, the Kennedy clan, was like you know, anything but like pro-life or like remotely Catholic you know.
The Italian paper said that the Vatican strongly disapproved of Mr Obama’s support for abortion and stem cell research. The impasse over the ambassadorial appointment threatens to cloud his meeting with the Pope during a G8 summit in Itay in July.
Ms Kennedy, 53, has said that she supports abortion. Raymond Flynn, a former US ambassador to the Vatican, said earlier this week that Ms Kennedy would be a poor choice.
“It’s imperative, it’s essential that the person who represents us to the Holy See be a person who has pro-life values. I hope the President doesn’t make that mistake,” he told the Boston Herald. “She said she was pro-choice. I don’t assume she’s going to change that, which is problematic.”
The White House refused to comment.
Good for the Pope and the Catholic Church. You may not agree with the pro-life stance, but a religion shouldn’t have to kowtow to a political agenda or ideology. As I learned in International Business in undergrad – if you are conducting business or negotiating with a business overseas you should know their culture and respect it – same goes for the Catholic Church.
I’m not sure if Obama and his Administration are just that incompetent or just deliberately doing this to demean the Catholic religion. I tend to lean towards the latter – which is why I’m glad the Pope is holding his own.
Since this report is coming out of the U.K. I’m curious to know whether or not the rest of the MSM will report on this, besides Fox News.
KIRSTEN POWERS: Women Are Not Delicate Little Flowers Despite What NARAL and Planned Parenthood Think
Click here to read the entire Op-Ed
The organization NARAL Pro Choice America blasted Virginia’s Governor Tim Kaine — the chairman of the Democratic National Committee — on Tuesday for signing a bill that, NARAL says, includes state funding for crisis pregnancy centers. Essentially, if someone buys a “Choose Life” license plate, some of the proceeds would go to crisis centers.
What are they so afraid of? Are their manipulative tactics and practices being threatened?
Women are not delicate little flowers who can’t handle information, despite what NARAL Pro Choice and Planned Parenthood tell us. They should have the option of having all the information presented to them before an abortion so they understand what they are doing.
And that is what everyone should be offerd. Information about all their options. Choices.
NARAL claims that crisis pregnancy centers — which exist to dissuade women from having an abortion — mislead woman. In New York, abortion rights groups lobbied Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to shut down such centers because they allegedly “scared” women.
And they should scare them a little bit. Abortion is taking the life of the most innocent and unprotected. This is not a form of birth control. Giving the woman a choice to have or provide a couple with an adoptive baby is much more worthy than terminating the life of the infant. What are they so scared of?
Women are not delicate little flowers who can’t handle information, despite what NARAL Pro Choice and Planned Parenthood tell us. They should have the option of having all the information presented to them before an abortion so they understand what they are doing.
How true is this? Women are a lot tougher, smarter, and able to make decisions about life than an angry pro-choice mob demanding abortion rights (which I, obviously, do not agree with). Women in this situation need to know all the facts so they can make an informed decision, not one based on radical ideology.
Abortion-rights activists sneer about anti-abortion advocates ignoring science. But the reality is that science is not on the side of NARAL or their ilk, and they know that. That’s why they don’t want women looking at ultrasounds or hearing that what they call a “little clump of cells” has a heartbeat at 3 weeks. (I learned that at the “Bodies” exhibit).
It was learning about that current science on fetal development that first shook my strong pro-choice beliefs. (I’m now where most Americans are: not advocating overturning Roe v. Wade, but in favor of limitations on abortion).
Exactly. I am not completely in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, however, there needs to be some serious intervention and PREVENTION. There are situations, either medical or criminal, that merit this procedure, then I can agree. However, when it is simply for the convenience of the mother to be….well, I have a problem with that.
Another key focus was on how to help women get health insurance if they wanted to keep the baby and finding parents to adopt the child if they wanted that option.
But as a person who cares about women’s rights, I would be enormously pleased if the people who claim to be “pro-choice” would embrace a wider array of choices for women dealing with unwanted pregnancies, rather than trying to bully any organization offering abortion alternatives out of existence.
Sebelius, Yet Another Obama Nom With Tax Issues
President Obama’s current nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary, is under fire for unpaid taxes.
In a letter to the Senate, Gov Sebelius explains that the $7,000 plus “oversight” was due to business and other personal transactions.
The point here, is these are supposed law makers, and most of whom are independently wealthy (to some extent) who pay tax lawyers to keep their taxes on track (or so it would seem). To us, what this hi-lights is that these nominees have all either been ripped off by these tax accountants or they all think they can shave off tax money owed to the IRS. Since it such a prevalent problem among many of Obama’s nominations, it would seem the latter would be a good choice.
It is of particular interest because these are the very same income brackets that President Obama wished to raise the tax rates on. So then we must start to wonder what tax loopholes will the Democrats put into the the tax code to protect themselves.
It does not bode well that the Tax and Spend administrations major nominations are less than honest on their personal taxes when they sure want to spend our tax dollars into oblivion.
After news broke Tuesday of Sebelius’ letter admitting the errors, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., quickly issued a statement supporting her nomination.
“Congress is going to need a strong partner at the Department of Health and Human Services to achieve comprehensive health reform this year, and we have that partner in Gov. Sebelius,” Baucus said. “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Gov. Sebelius has the political experience, determination, and bipartisan work ethic to get the job done with Congress this year. She’s the right person for the job.”
In other words, despite all of these tax issues, she is going to sail through confirmation in the Senate. There will be no Democrat opposition to this nomination.
Another major issue with Gov Sebelius, is that she is a staunch Pro-Choice supporter. In the interim run up to Senate hearings she signed a feel good bill in the wake of Dr Death’s acquittal two weeks ago.
The bill requires abortion providers to offer women seeking abortions the option of viewing an ultrasound and listening to a fetal heartbeat monitor.
Well there is a bill with some teeth. Yes you can choose to have a picture and listen to the sound, if you so desire.
Sebelius in the past has vetoed antiabortion-rights legislation. Beth Martino, a spokesperson for Sebelius, said the governor signed the bill because it included no constitutional flaws and did not jeopardize patient privacy or block access to health services (AP/Los Angeles Times, 3/28). By signing the bill, Sebelius — who is expected to begin U.S. Senate confirmation hearings on Tuesday — “steered clear of one final showdown with anti-abortion lawmakers as she exits Kansas politics,” the Star reports.
She signed the bill because it did nothing to strengthen pro-life positions, of which she is staunchly opposed to. This was simply a feel good measure designed to provide some smoke and mirrors for the Senate confirmation hearings. To me this is a bigger issue than the taxes. She is an liberal who allows partial birth abortions to take place in her state and did nothing about it. In what turned out to be a joke trial over partial birth practices in her state, it only makes you wonder what protection she will offer the unborn.
Update: Fighting Irish Lay Down; Fighting Irish Backlash
UPDATE:
Notre Dame is keeping Obama as the commencement speaker or so says the Chicago Sun Times. It appears that the alumni, parents and others may still try to fight this with petitions (linked below), funding and phone calls.
There are parents, alumni and some students who are not all that ecstatic over President Obama conducting the commencement speech at Notre Dame’s graduation this year. The college itself (not the young student body) has historically been more conservative and many students come from conservative backgrounds when they arrive at the school, some stay that way, but most change ideologically, as could be expected. The current student body is typically liberal, but many of the alumni go back to their conservative roots as they get older. The biggest issue for Notre Dame is its deep Catholic roots. Catholicism has very conservative opinions and views in regards to abortion and embryonic stem cell research – this becomes a very big issue since Obama is the most radical pro-choice president in the history of this nation.
As reported here on First Read Friday, President Obamawill be speaking at the University of Notre Dame commencement ceremony on May 17th. While the president will also be speaking at the Naval Academy and Arizona State, those appearances haven’t caused as much uproar as his trip to South Bend, Ind.
In today’s edition of the student newspaper, The Observer, letters to the editor, which are usually reserved for debates over the color of The Shirt or whether it’s proper to chant “Sucks” at sporting events — was expanded to cover a lively debate over whether Obama should be speaking.“Obama choice unacceptable,” read one headline, and “Obama a disgrace” shouted another.
The point of contention? The president’s record on issues related to abortion, the majority of which clash with the strict anti-abortion stance of the Catholic Church. An online petition has sprung up urging people to voice their complaints to Father John Jenkins, president of the university.
Jenkins said in an interview with the student paper Monday that while there are clear differences between the president and the Catholic church on some issues (abortion and embryonic stem cell research), it was a great honor to have the president accept the university’s offer and that he had no plans to rescind the offer.
A majority of the student body is enthusiastic about President Obama coming to speak — he won the campus’ mock election 52.6% to 41.1% over Sen. John McCain — but an active alumni base that skews more conservative than the increasingly liberal campus has been vocal about the selection of the commencement speaker.
Maybe that’s why they call them the Fighting Irish!
There were several petitions for this item of interest as well.
