The President "scored big at Notre Dame" Sunday and here is why, according to William McGurn at the Wall Street Journal. President Obama was clear about his principles, while Notre Dame remains clearly ambiguous.At Notre Dame today, there is no pro-life organization -- in size, in funding, in prestige -- that compares with the many centers, institutes and so forth dedicated to other important issues ranging from peace and justice to protecting the environment. Perhaps this explains why a number of pro-life professors tell me they must not be quoted by name, lest they face career retaliation.
At Notre Dame? I thought perhaps the president of ND might have gotten into some hot water, but McGurn's take suggests quite clearly that nothing will come of this whole episode other than another nail in the coffin of moral clarity.
George Neumayr, "Two models of hope (Notre Dame chooses Obama’s over its namesake’s)" (Free Republic, May 18, 2009). Excerpts:[Hat tip to J.M.]"It is not beyond our capacity to know the intentions of God... It is certain, not doubtful, that killing unborn children and the elderly is unjust. It is certain, not doubtful, that man is made for heterosexuality, not homosexuality. It is certain, not doubtful, that God exists and man owes him piety. What is doubtful, indeed destructive, is Obama’s glib notion that a civilized democracy is attainable without these truths.
.... A country that gives Obama’s skepticism and relativism a privileged and honored place in public life while treating the existence of God and the natural moral law as mere “opinions” and uncertainties has stripped away the grounds for hope. ...
Man, as a dependent creature who comes from God and culminates in him, cannot save himself from death nor his society from disintegration. By honoring Obama’s “audacious hope,” Notre Dame has put its faith in princes and forgotten the model of hope that its namesake preeminently embodies.