Anthony M Stevens-Arroyo Pontificates On Obama Visit to Notre Dame

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo is sadly one of the main contributors as to the Catholic view point at the Washington Post / Newsweek. On the whole if any view comes from Orthodoxy or God forbid it comes from a conservative viewpoint he bashes full steam ahead. For instance look at this piece of little nastiness he did toward Governor Palin last year

..I do not believe the word "apostate Catholic" applies to her. Moreover, the Catholic faith is not diminished by her joining another church any more than we are proven to be the "one, true Church" because of the conversion to Catholicism of a former Protestant like Senator Sam Brownback. What I note here is that her ex-Catholic status may contribute to the favorable frenzy Palin's nomination generated from Evangelicals.

A more subtle reason is in the preference that Evangelicals place on repentance in contrast to how Catholics extol life-long purity. Thus, she is not criticized for having eloped rather than having a church wedding or for delivering her first child in an eyebrow-raising eight months later, according to some accounts. The acorn does not fall far from the tree, as they say, and it appears to me that Evangelicals emphasize repentance for sexual miscues over the Catholic ideal of always being pure. After all, Catholics sing of Mary, "O Sanctissima," which has scant echo in Evangelical hymnal books.

There is also the Evangelical fascination with sexual forbidden fruit that places the vamp alongside the virgin.

I don't blame Woody Allen's picture, "Sleeper," for my indifference to beauty contests and the overdressed, mascara-laden, super deep made-up televangelists and former beauty queens. But somehow the idea that as governor she is "hot" recommends Palin to the Evangelical faithful. In contrast, we Catholics tend to put loose-fitting sacks called "school uniforms" on our young girls. Modesty prevails over flirtation.I still do not understand her airplane travel after her water broke when she was pregnant.....................

So basically as we see one of the leading voices of Catholic thought at the Post/Newsweek not only makes wild stereotypes about evangelicals he also call a sitting Governor a big ole slut!!! All within a few paragraphs. This sort of unload the torpedoes is his style.

So I note this week he gives his words of wisdom on the the whole Obama Controversy as to Notre Dame . See Obama, Discrimination and the Catholic Right

His first paragraph is something else.

"The bishop was denied participation in the Memorial Day ceremony at the military cemetery because his Church opposes the right of gay and lesbians to marry." This hasn't happened - yet. However, I suggest it is equivalent to the ill-fated discrimination by certain prelates and allied right-wing Catholics to prevent President Barack Obama from participating in the Notre Dame graduation this May. What goes around usually comes around.

Ill fated discrimination? Also notice he how makes the jump in his what is good for the goose and is good for the gander argument!! Make a fuss over a Govt official appearing at a private University and you might find your Church will be discriminated against in the public square. Fair is Fair. He seems to have forgotten the Govt is here to serve us not we the Emperor.

I hope I'm wrong, but it appears that some bishops live in a bubble, surrounded by yeah-sayers. Pronouncements are made with the apparently unfounded assumption that no one -- not even those outside the Church -- will dare to question authority or deliver consequences to questionable actions................

What bubble is he living in. The Bishops can make pronouncements on the most simple of matters and they are assaulted on all sides all the time

Rule One is to choose a terrain on which you can prevail. Taken from military strategy, it applies to politics as well. The university is too well-known, too strongly established as a Catholic institution to be threatened by boycotting bishops or snide letters ridiculing a long history of Catholic intellectuality. By insisting on a duty to be open to different opinions, the university makes the protesters seem only one step away from book-burners. Protest against academic openness comes across badly in the media.

I am willing to bet that he has had different views as to this rule depending if the Bishops were endorsing his issue. The question here is not about "academic openness and he knows that. He knows that many Catholics know there is no dialogue happening. It is all a one sided street.

Rule Two of Politics 101 is to avoid the numbers game unless you have an insurmountable lead. When right wing bloggers brag about 166,000 plus protesting emails, they need to remember there are 54 million U.S. Catholics. A percentage of .003% response is not intimidating. Likewise 150 right-wing students hardly stir ripples on a campus of 8,000. Even two dozen bishops writing letters doesn't compare to more than 400 bishops in the country. In each of these cases, non-protesters greatly outnumber dissenters. As St. Thomas More insisted: Qui tacuit consentire. The failed strategy of the right-wing leaves the door open for Notre Dame to claim that it represents the "silent majority." Moreover, the campus newspaper reported that 97% of the student letters supported the invitation to the president, while most of the complaints came from off-campus. No pitch-fork revolution here!

I must say it is takes a ton of moxy to quote St Thomas More as to this situation but he does. He seems to make a very Catholic argument here. That is no engage on Protest about truth unless the majority is with you. He also seems to be making a classic mistake we see in blog land. That is a lack of posting or comment on a particular subject means there is agreement by that blogger. We see of course that is not true in real life. We are talking also about some pretty big Bishops and Cardinals that have commented. Also note many times in the whole article he uses the term RIGHT WING. Who knew the New Archbishop of New York and the Cardinals of Houston and Chicago were right wing?

Rule Three is to avoid claiming your demand is motivated by a higher morality unless the opposite position is clearly immoral. The university has made the case that the invitation to President Obama is in keeping with similar invitations to past presidents. He is honored as president and not for any specific moral position of his like abortion or stem-cell research -- the dissenters' most mentioned issues. The protesting prelates are claiming that no Catholics can honor a U.S. president whose stated positions deviate from the ones those bishops hold. This stance would represent the higher moral ground, except for one important detail: there was no protest over Bush's Republicans speaking at Notre Dame.

With the toothpaste out of the tube, it's too late to claim moral superiority.Let it be said that in contrast with the previous administration, President Obama agrees with much of the Church's teaching on matters like unions, social justice, the unjust Iraq War, government-sponsored torture, disarmament, immigration reform, health care and the like. Thus, these bishops and their allies are in the untenable position that the university may honor someone who disagrees with say 97% of Church teaching (Condoleezza Rice) -- as long as the 3% of the issues supported include abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. This selectivity makes the bishops and the dissenters into Cafeteria Catholics -- those who choose only certain Church issues in partisan politics. Moreover, by tolerating a 97% violation of Church teaching, the protesters also prove they can't count. Obama is enjoying extremely high popularity ratings and is not seen by most Catholics as being the "agent of evil" denounced by the right-wing of Catholicism. The single-wing game plan against Notre Dame is going to lose this one.

In his final paragraph he throws out a ton of stuff hoping it will stick. Who are all these Bush Republicans that
have been speaking at Notre Dame Commencements:
In 2001 they had Bush
In 2002 they had the late Tim Russert from Meet the Press
In 2003 they had Home State Senator Indiana Senator Richard Lugar (not exactly know. as right winger)
In 2004 they had Minnesota Supreme Court Justice and former football great Alan C. Page
In 2005 they had Vartan Gregorian President, Carnegie Corporation of New York
In 2006 they had President of Ireland Mary McAleese
In 2007 they had General Electric chair and CEO Jeffrey Immelt
In 2008 they had Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick

Where are all these BUSH Republicans that he is ranting about!!!

But what about Condoleezza Rice!!! What he does not tell you is that this Notre Dame Graduate and Trustee appeared in 1995!!! Smack dab in the middle Clinton administration. While Rice might be pro-choice in her personal views (she is not nearly as pro-choice as Obama) for the most part it has little to do with her work in the past. Abortion has never been a part of her advocacy. Very much unlike Obama. In fact I don't her personal views on abortion became know till 2000. I am not sure if the majority of the American public even knew who Rice was at the time.

He somehow throws this 97 percent figure out there. Who knows where that is coming from. How he thinks Sec Rice (who again spoke in 1995) is against 97 percent of the Church teachings he does not tell us. Why does he think Rice is against things like Unions? Was Rice against Reagan's immigration reform? Again his argument is a muddled mess

Finally we see that again he follows the line of confusing what Catholics have to assent too and disagree. For instance one must assent on the Church's view on abortion. Catholic were and can continue to disagree on Iraq and other matters and still be Catholics in good faith.

Last time I looked supporters of the Iraq war (more exactly wars) were not denied entry into the Catholic Church in their RCIA program.

Try again Mr Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo