“Notre Dame, My Mother”
Though it’s the Feast of St. Joseph, I’m sure he won’t mind letting his spouse take center stage. He’s always shown in the background anyway.
An alumna of Mary’s University has written a moving testimony to her struggle on graduation day ten years ago:
For many members of the Notre Dame Class of 2009, the uproar surrounding the university’s decision to honor Barack Obama with this year’s commencement address, and to bestow on him a doctorate of laws, has provoked strong feelings about what the ensuing conflict will mean for their graduation.
I know how they feel. Ten years ago, my heart was filled with similar conflicts as we came closer to the day of my own Notre Dame commencement and my commissioning as an officer in the United States Army.
You see, I was three months pregnant.
That March, I had gone—alone—to a local woman’s clinic to take a test. The results were positive, and I was so numb I almost didn’t grasp what the nurse was getting at when she assured me I had “other options.” What did “other options” mean? And what kind of world is it that defines compassion as telling a young woman who has just learned she is carrying life inside her that she has the option to destroy it?
When I returned to campus, I ran to the Grotto. I was confused and full of conflicting emotions. But I knew this: No amount of shame or embarrassment would ever lead me to get rid of my baby. Of all women, Our Lady could surely feel pity for an unplanned pregnancy. I recalled her surrendered love to God’s invitation to become the home of the Incarnate Word. “Let it be done to me according to thy word,” she had said. In my hour of need, on my knees, I asked Mary for courage and strength. And she did not disappoint.
My boyfriend was a different story. He was also a Notre Dame senior. When I told him that he was to be a father, he tried to pressure me into having an abortion. Like so many women in similar circumstances, I found out the kind of man the father of my child was at precisely the moment I needed him most. “All that talk about abortion is just dining-room talk,” he said. “When it’s really you in the situation, it’s different. I will drive you to Chicago and pay for a good doctor.”
The rest is here.
Thank you, Father Imbelli, for this message of Hope.
Wow, what a moving account. It ends with the following:
“I’d like to ask this of Fr. John Jenkins, the Notre Dame president: Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama—the young, pregnant Notre Dame woman sitting in that graduating class who wants desperately to keep her baby, or the Notre Dame man who believes that the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is just dining-room talk?”
Nuff said.
Fr. Imbelli, thank you for this post. Tears welled up in my eyes, reading of this woman’s struggles.
It’s astonishing that there are no maternal care facilities on college campuses.
“I’d like to ask this of Fr. John Jenkins, the Notre Dame president: Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama . . .
How about current and potential black students and faculty at Notre Dame?
One of Father Jenkins goals when he took office was to increase diversity at Notre Dame, and he has succeeded very well.
I feel sorry for those who can see Obama only as a symbol of abortion. What a narrow and twisted view of reality they have! He’s a human being, with talents and abilities with some views that most of us agree with and other views that many of us don’t. He’s the candidate, as I believe I have read, who was the choice for president of the majority of Notre Dame students. Did they vote for him because of his stand on abortion?
Bless the young woman for all she did to keep her baby, but her article is emotionally manipulative. She is basically asking, “Whose side are you on? My side? The side of a young unmarried woman who kept her baby? Or the side of my boyfriend, who wanted me to have an abortion?” Well, I am on her side, but I don’t think it really has anything to do with Obama. It is not an endorsement of abortion to invite Obama to speak or to give him an honorary degree.
Of all women, Our Lady could surely feel pity for an unplanned pregnancy.
Just as an aside, I find this statement amazing.
I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I feel the analogy is inexact–perhaps even inappropriate.
Yes, her ending is clearly aimed at driving home a political point, which seems a bit out of kilter in an otherwise moving story. But is her conclusion the one she apparently intends?
In fact, the answer would seem to be Barack Obama.
This is a moving story, but surely this statement is over the top:
“And I learned, as so many pregnant women have before and since, that life is the one choice that pro-choicers won’t support”
Pro-choicers don’t choose life in every circumstance — that’s the “choice” the label refers to. This guy may have been an insensitive boor, a frightened kid, or just morally wrong, but this statement doesn’t express anything but the author’s bitterness. It’s uncharitable to accuse all pro-choice people of being like this particular one.
Everyone will say this is a story of courage, but how much of a paradigm on viewing the Obama invitation it provides will only be seen through the prisms folks have already brought here.
I’m always amazed at how quickly the left will gang up on a person, especially a woman, who has spoken truth to power. And so we hear her attacked with words like…”inexact”, “inappropriate”, “political”, “over the top”, “bitter”, “uncharitable”….I fear more will come.
To me, it’s as if the woman began writing in the sand and her accusers were exposed…remember, it was the wisest who walked away first.
This is indeed a very moving story. I have a niece, who while a college student in a similar situation, made the same decision as this young woman did. But it seems to me that there is a certain logical fallacy in the presentation. Because one young UND senior ten years ago encouraged his friend to have an abortion, we should take this as a common attitude among ND students then and now. And I don’t quite see how this gets so easily, and I believe unjustly, linked to Father Jenkins’s (and the Board of Trustees’) invitation to President Obama to be the commencement speaker and receive an honorary degree. I don’t know Father Jenkins, but I have been shocked at some of the accusations thrown at him, not least by some bishops. You just don’t write letters like that to a fellow Catholic Christian, and indeed a fellow priest. It disappointed me to find in this truly beautiful, faith-filled, courageous account another hit at Father Jenkins as though he wants to convey to the students of UND that they needn’t accept the Church’s teaching on abortion. That to me is a leap too far. As before and always, in omnibus caritas. I perhaps shouldn’t comment. It’s all so sad. Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.
Mark Proska — you may think this woman’s statment says “nuff,” but that doesn’t make those who disagree with you cruel or sinful for saying so. Unless Obama delivers a commencement speech encouraging Notre Dame grads to take advantage of abortion, or arguing for mandatory termination of college students’ pregnancies, I don’t see how his appearance could be construed as unsupportive of any young women (or men) who “want desperately” to keep their unborn babies. It’s a moving story, but a flimsy argument.
Here’s why I think the analogy has some merit. It might not have merit a year or two from now, but we’ll have to wait and see.
The President is coming to ND as someone who is strongly pro-choice on abortion. I think we can all agree with that characterization. (I’m not going near the “extreme” imbroglio in fear of discussion going sideways.) He’s said some good things lately about abortion having moral dimensions, that FOCA is not a legislative priority, etc. But what has he actually done on life issues that gives him more credibility with pro-lifers (and I’m not talking about the extreme (the right word) wing of the pro-life community) than he had as a candidate? He’s talked about wanting to reduce the number of abortions, and at his press conference earlier this week he mentioned a “task force” comprised of pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Task forces can be a good thing, but who knows how long it will take for it to offer recommendations and whether the recommendations will be accepted. By all means, the task force should go at it, but what has the President actually done that would make a Lacy Dodd or the father of her child feel any differently on commencement day 2009 than would 10 years ago if a pro-choice person of similar stature had addressed the graduates at ND?
I’m a broken record on this, but if the President were to endorse the PWSA on or before commencement, I think he would help his street cred in a measurable way in the pro-life community. I’m starting to think he may be very wary about endorsement, and that maybe that’s one of the reasons for the task force. See the following push back from a pro-choice organization about certain aspects of the PWSA:
http://www.birthcontrolwatch.org/blog/2009/02/can-pro-choice-people-support-pregnant.html#links
Perhaps the President will in time be successful in significantly lowering the abortion rate in the U.S–I certainly hope so–but he hasn’t done that yet, and that’s why the analogy the author offers could have merit in the eyes of any Lacey Dodds and unmarried student fathers graduating from ND this year.
Perhaps the President will in time be successful in significantly lowering the abortion rate in the U.S–I certainly hope so–but he hasn’t done that yet,
Hasn’t done that yet?
Even in this era of instant gratification, such a judgement lacks any reasonable perspective. It’s only been little more than 100 days and Obama is expected to have solved every problem that’s vexed Republican administrations that have been in power since Reagan.
Like many others, I find this testimony moving and I thoroughly support her decision. Howewever, I am still stuckon the point that it is proper for any institution to invite the POTUS to any event. One need not agree with all policies– and I disagreed with the majority of those of George Bush and his cabinet — to say that in this nation inviting the President to a graduation is an appropriate honor. I demonstrated against some of the speakers at Syracuse U. commencements and would not be disappointed if others who felkt strongly demonstartated against Obama, but I believe that SU, as well a Catholic insitution lilke Notrre Dame, is well within its rights to invite him. The bishops have renewed energy for this fight, but I don’t think this focus is either educationally or pragmatically helpful.
Antonio–
Exactly. I don’t disagree with you. That’s why perhaps it would have better if ND had waited a year or two to extend the invitation to the President. Nothing would have defused this situation more than for the President to have come to ND with a list of specific actions that resulted in a substantially reduced abortion rate.
Mollie–Disagreeing with me is not cruel or sinful, it can even be healthy. Attacking this young woman, who has done a selfless and courageous thing, is cruel though. Come to think of it, wasn’t Mary attacked for her unwed pregnancy? The parallels just go on and on.
Your argument that as long as Obama doesn’t encourage ND students to have abortions is a silly one, though. Would you be ok with ND inviting Dick Cheney, so long as he didn’t encourage ND students to torture anyone?
William,
This sentence by the author of the piece is hardly a fair statement: “And I learned, as so many pregnant women have before and since, that life is the one choice that pro-choicers won’t support.” It is not as if people who are pro-choice want to abort all their own children and want everyone else to do the same. It’s actually an outrageous statement (as well as, of course, a generalization from her boyfriend — in a very particular situation — to all people who are pro-choice). It is in essence an accusation that neither Obama or any other pro-choice person would support a woman who wants to go through with an unplanned pregnancy. Do you really think Obama wouldn’t be personally supportive of someone in that situation? I certainly don’t.
I repeat: I feel sorry for those who can see Obama only as a symbol of abortion. It is like looking at Benedict XVI only as someone who is opposed to using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.
Come to think of it, wasn’t Mary attacked for her unwed pregnancy? The parallels just go on and on.
Mark,
Please show me where anyone here has attacked Lacy Dodd for her pregnancy out of wedlock. Everyone has expressed their admiration for what she did ten years ago. It is her article and her argument that is under “attack.”
And it is bizarre at best — some would say offensive — to claim parallels between Lacy Dodd and the Virgin Mary!
I see every one on this blog wanting to eliminate/reduce/sanction abortion. Some want sanction in law and conscience and some want sanctions imbedded in conscience.
Justice Sueter retires and another pro-choice is nominated/placed.in the next 4-8 years more Justices will be replaced,
Abortion law sanctions are not going to happen. …havn’t happened in 38 years.What to do??
FAMILY MATTERS;
Just as the ND student was supported by her family and prayerfully birthed and raised her child, so in my family, with the support of the other family we now have a 20 year old Alexis.
At the time the university students, faculty, peers all pressed for abortion. The ND student [Dodd]was fortunate that she was able to graduate/get a commission. earlier in college the pressure would have been greater. Can I ask the academics on this blog why in ‘Town and Gown’ do pregnant students have to go to Town to get support as the ND student did?
As an aside, when, over the years some of my many grandchilren have asked’ Is Alexis grandma’s favorite?”
I always lie and say “grandma has no favorites”
Can I ask the academics on this blog why in ‘Town and Gown’ do pregnant students have to go to Town to get support as the ND student did?
Ed,
Perhaps it was different ten years ago, but Notre Dame is fully supportive of pregnant students.
http://osa.nd.edu/health-safety/assistance-for-pregnant-students
Mark, you need to stop accusing people of “attacking” this woman. Finding fault with her argument against inviting President Obama to speak is not an “attack.” Again: This woman is saying that inviting the president, who supports legalized abortion, to speak at Notre Dame is inherently unsupportive of her difficult decision to keep her baby, and directly unsupportive of anyone in the current graduating class faced with the same choice. That strikes me as more than a stretch. The church’s very clear teaching that abortion is wrong is no less clear because President Obama, who believes abortion should be legal — and that young women should be able to make the choice this woman made — will be speaking at Notre Dame’s commencement.
One of the great strengths of Lacy Dodds’ piece is the timely reminder that the topic of abortion isn’t just “dining room talk” – or “commencement speech talk” – for at least some of the young women and men who will be sitting through the speeches that day. It’s a real and interpersonal choice made in the face of a personal crisis, and undoubtedly at least a few of the graduating seniors have walked or are walking that path.
In a time of crisis like that, it’s good to have the church standing beside and behind us, to support us and to show us the path of life. In Lacy Dodds’ situation, it seems she discovered an authentically feminist response to unintended pregnancy. Her witness needs to be heard by a world that has been fed pernicious lies for many decades now.
“Hasn’t done that yet?
Even in this era of instant gratification, such a judgment lacks any reasonable perspective. It’s only been little more than 100 days and Obama is expected to have solved every problem that’s vexed Republican administrations that have been in power since Reagan.”
What time frame is reasonable for the President to begin to be responsible for the results the people were promised regarding the reduction of the deaths of these innocents? In the first 100 days, the President spent $6 Trillion, repealed Mexico City, and signed his ESCR EO – surely he can get PWSA signed into law quite quickly.
How can someone read this and then criticize Ms. Dodd for “seeing Obama as only about abortion.” There are many other positives and negatives to our President… but all of the other differences among our politicians fade to near-irrelevance when compared to the importance of the abortion issue.
Right now, the United States is a sponsor of a global death machine. Barack Obama looks for more and more opportunities to expand it. You ask Ms. Dodd to see beyond the very life of her daughter? How does one look beyond that? If you can look beyond the 50 million innocent deaths that have resulted from abortion, that’s pretty sickening.
In 1999, the Commencement speaker at Notre Dame was that pro-life stalwart… Elizabeth Dole, who was then the president of the American Red Cross.
According to http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Elizabeth_Dole_Abortion.htm
Dole calls herself “pro-life” but acknowledges that a constitutional amendment banning abortion “is not going to happen because the American people do not support it.” She [suggests we] “recognize that good and honorable people disagree on the subject of abortion, and we should agree to respectfully disagree.” Dole notes that other important women’s issues, such as domestic violence, child care, and sexual harassment are “nearly ignored” while differences over abortion policy command media attention.
Source: CNN AllPolitics Apr 15, 1999
Dole has long supported legal abortions for women who are the victims of rape, incest, or if a woman’s health is jeopardized. But when asked whether she viewed spending Medicaid funds for poor women’s abortions as a fairness issue, Dole replied: “I think I am against federal funding for abortions.” Later, a spokesman confirmed that Dole supports the current law. The Post states that current law allows using Medicaid money for abortion in instances of rape, incest or when the woman’s life is in danger.
Source: Ceci Connelly, The Washington Post Aug 17, 1999
I can see that Dole as a speaker would provide just the sort of inspiration that the young lady writing in First Things would have needed.
David –
Your metaphor of the pregnant ND girl and the Blessed Mother also implies that the Holy Spirit was just a horny kid. Come off it.
Do I feel sorry for the ND girl? Of course, and also for her child and even the father. They are all victims of the Russian roulette moral theory of premarital sex — take a chance! :-( But contraceptives are not fail-safe,and it does a tremendous disservice to kids to let them think it’s OK to act otherwise. The possibilities of negative consequences are simply to great to risk.
Yes, the old teaching “no marriage, no sex” is a hard saying. So?
Perhaps Mr. Obama can explain that the pregnancy was a punishment – that which he does not wish visited on his daughters. .
May 1 is the Feast of St. Joseph? Did it not used to be March 19? Is this yet another Vatican II change?
Hi, Gabriel, both days are feast days of St. Joseph. Today is St Joseph the Worker – sort of the Catholic version of May Day. (And one that I really like). March 19th is still the Solemnity of St. Joseph.
Gabriel asked: “May 1 is the Feast of St. Joseph? Did it not used to be March 19? Is this yet another Vatican II change?”
Actually, May 1 is the feast of “St. Joseph the Worker.” Pius XII added this feast as late as 1955, in an apparent attempt to co-opt the day when workers demonstrated for the rights of labor. May 1 was also the day when the Communist Party staged big rallies at the Kremlin.
Reference: http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1370
“the Russian roulette moral theory of premarital sex”
Just letting you know, Ann, that I plan to plagiarize that one on a regular basis and that I may forget to give you attribution. ;)
It’s not the feast of St. Joseph… it’s the Feast of St. Joseph THE WORKER… a second celebration of St. Joseph instituted by Pope Pius XII to coincide with May Day… to promote a more Catholic view of labor values.
sorry, no need for the redundancy of “that I may forget to give you attribution.” This thread is lively enough without redundancies clogging cyberspace.
I’m not sure what the moral ought to be. You can beat the drums for chastity all you want but there will always be cases like the 9-year old Brazilian girl who was raped and made pregnant by her step father. Those nasty realities make moral absolutes a little hard to digest.
This letter seems sort of manipulative to me.
And what kind of world is it that defines compassion as telling a young woman who has just learned she is carrying life inside her that she has the option to destroy it?
A world that has a medical profession that offers a patient all the info needed to make an informed choice, saying that they don’t labor under the “gag rule”.
Like so many women in similar circumstances, I found out the kind of man the father of my child was at precisely the moment I needed him most. “All that talk about abortion is just dining-room talk,” he said. “When it’s really you in the situation, it’s different. I will drive you to Chicago and pay for a good doctor.”
This is a pretty negative steriotyping of men, and I don’t like the inmplied idea that women are helpless victims.
It just gets worse from here. I’m probably going to be seen as mean spirited, but ….
According to some — and it may well be true — Pius XII insituted the May 1st St. Joseph the Worker feast in the mid-fifties, in order not to let the Communists monopolize the day. Of course May 1 is not just Labor Day for Communists — it is an almost universal celebration of labor throughout the world, communist or not. “Almost” because the American way of dishing the Communists’ nefarious celebratory schemes was to have “our” labor day in early September, so that no good red-blooded American would see anything Red about it.
I have hesitated to jump into the ND – Obama – abortion fight, tho I read the various opinions with interest. But mightn’t we all take a minute to realize that it is not just American Democrats, secularists, and others, who take a permissive view towards abortion these days? As far as government policy is concerned, the permissiveness is standard in most (all?) Western countries, and a lot of non-Western ones as well, and reflects the views of large numbers of their citizens.
Why? What do they see that we don’t? or what do we see that they don’t? In any case, the only answer is likely to come through education, and not through declaring war on our “enemies” like the bishop of KC, and others.
If bishops are supposed to be teachers, they must also turn themselves into educators as well, and not simply rely on their real or supposed authority to gain unthinking obedience to their proclamations. I sometimes wonder whether their training makes them ready to understand how to be educators, but I’m not certain.
Do I feel sorry for the ND girl? Of course, and also for her child and even the father. They are all victims of the Russian roulette moral theory of premarital sex — take a chance! :-( But contraceptives are not fail-safe,and it does a tremendous disservice to kids to let them think it’s OK to act otherwise. The possibilities of negative consequences are simply to great to risk.
True, contraceptives are no guarantee that pregnancy won’t happen, but the Russina roulette analogy is fear mongering. Besides, the author never says whether or not contraceptives of any sort were involved. Obviously, that bit of information might undermine the author’s weepy self-portrayal as a victim of callous male selfishness.
Perhaps Mr. Obama can explain that the pregnancy was a punishment – that which he does not wish visited on his daughters. .
Gabriel,
Your remark is what’s known as a cheap shot, but in any case, is it wrong for Obama not to want his daughters to get pregnant out of wedlock?
It’s nice to see the pro-life movement has brought tolerance for out-of-wedlock pregnancies. But on the one hand, we are told, abortion is murder. It’s unthinkable. On the other hand, women who don’t have abortions are courageous and heroic. There’s something strange to that way of thinking.
“And what kind of world is it that defines compassion as telling a young woman who has just learned she is carrying life inside her that she has the option to destroy it?
A world that has a medical profession that offers a patient all the info needed to make an informed choice, saying that they don’t labor under the “gag rule”.”
Hi, Crystal, no I don’t think you’re mean spirited.
I would like to comment, by way of analogy, on the frequently-encountered line of thought you summarize – “let’s give women all of the information, and then they can make an informed decision.”
Suppose that I convert all my worldly wealth (such as it is) into cash – let’s say it’s $10,000. What should I do with my money?
a) I could deposit it in a bank, where it is secure, and also insured.
b) I could set it on a card table along the street where I live, in neat bundles of $20 and $100 bills. Of course, I recognize there is a risk that the money would be stolen, so along with the cash, I would also tape a typewritten letter to the the table top, explaining that the money belongs to me, and that anyone who takes the money would be stealing. That way, anyone tempted to take the money would be making a fully informed decision.
To my mind, b) is a reasonably apt analogy of the current abortion license.
To put the russian roullette metaphore in perspective, according to the FDA’s web site ( http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html ) the lowest expected rate for the pill is 0.1%. In other words, a chance of pregnancy of one in 1000 when the pill is used as directed.
Jim,
You need a better analogy. In (a) you’re the one making the informed choice. In (b) it is the general public who is faced with the choice.
(a) deposit in a bank, where it is secure, and also insured
(b) get the prison address of Bernie Madoff and send it to him to invest
Many have well pointed out here how this story appears quite polemical with flawed logic to boot. If we seek to use emotions we can point to the millions of women who have been butchered because abortion is illegal in their countries.
Above all we can point out the Catholic Hierarchy’s miserable record towards children throughout the world. And yes the this hierarchy takes credit for everything it can but none for the Holocaust which happened under its watch.
Invisiblechildren.com tells the story of massacre of children, especially on Christmas 2008. How many words of the bishops over abortion while very little for millions of children abused and hungry.
There is a hypocrisy here which the prolife movement still does not face that dilemman.
Jim,
Your analogy makes women sound like dopes. I think most people would expect their doctors to give them all relevent info about their health and their medical options.
I had an experience where that didn’t happen …. when I was a teen and in college, I majored in art because I wanted to be an artist. My eye doc discovered I had a degeneratuve eye disease. He decided not to tell me until I graduated becuae he didn’t want to ruin my college years with the depressing news. As I look back, I wonder what I might have studied instead if I’d been given the information. I’ll never know.
Not exactly on point but I think people should be respected enough to be given all info relating to their decision making process – how else can they discern?
Antonio –
“fear-mongering”? No. Fear-inspiring, yes. Is it fear-mongering to tell a 4 year old not to play with fire? Parents are obliged to do that
So as I see it, the ultimate practical moral problem in all of this is: how great a risk is permissible when consequences can include the possibilities of a child with no active father?
(Another issue that I think needs airing is the de facto trivializing the importance of a father as such in a child’s life.)
Bill, the hierarchy is currently in the midst of a monumental campaign to deal with impoverished children all over the world:
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/globalpoverty/
At least attempt to informed and fair in your criticisms.
Ann–
If you’d like to see an excellent reflection on the importance of a father in the life of a child, take a look at Fr. Jim Martin’s post today about St. Joseph on the America blog.
Then hurry back here so you don’t miss anything. :)
David–
I think I may have been unclear. I do not think this young woman is under attack for being an unwed mother. I think she’s under attack because her courage logically implicates Obama and, by extension, his enablers (including Fr. Jenkins and those who support his invitation). Despite her story being so compelling, in fact, because her story is so compelling, SHE. MUST. BE. BROUGHT. DOWN. Thus, though people may concede that they feel “compassion” when hearing her story, my sense is that for too many it’s a reluctant compassion, a grudging compassion, a how-dare-you-accuse-me-by-living-virtuously compassion. That’s why we continue to hear words like “flimsy”, “manipulative”, “hardly fair”, “negative stereotype”, “polemical” applied to her story.
By the way, I find it bizarre that you find it bizarre to see a connection with the Virgin. I see a parallel between every mother (and particularly, this mother) and our Blessed Mother, don’t you?
Mark — it’s out of bounds for you to characterize the compassion of others as other than sincere, and it’s even more out of bounds for you to claim that what commenters are really objecting to is this woman’s superior virtue. You can stop doing that, or you can stop commenting.
Charlie,
You know I am talking about the decibel level. Catholic Relief Services is a shining star in our midst. Much good has been done despite hierarchical meddling. Perhaps the most famous was Spellman trying to get use of the money slated for the missions from Bishop Sheen.
There is just no comparison in intensity and frequency of the abortion issue over the issue of the poor and downtrodden. The hierarchy does not imitate the master in his poverty but lives in splendor apart from the poor. The fact that abortion has been made an incessant political football by the Hierarchy and its allies like Falwell and Robertson add to the scandal.
Why don’t you grade it. I bet you will find UNICEF more involved with the poor than the Catholic hierarchy. We can also talk about the opposition to Amnesty international and other productive advocates of the needy. Etc.
Bill, how was I to know you were supposedly talking about decibel level (which I completely agree needs to be dialed up…though the media certainly play a role here) when this was your quote:
“Above all we can point out the Catholic Hierarchy’s miserable record towards children throughout the world.”
Is is a borderline ridiculous statement giving the thousands of Roman Catholic organizations helping children around the world–many of which have hierarchical leadership or connection. Catholic Relief Services–and its current campaign against global poverty–is commissioned directly by the bishops. Consider the members of the pontifical council ‘Cor Unum’:
the International Association of St Vincent de Paul, Caritas Internationalis, the International Union of Superiors General, the Union of Superiors General, Australian Catholic Relief, Caritas Italiana, Caritas Lebanon, Catholic Relief Services (United States Catholic Conference), Deutscher Caritasverband, Manos Unidas, Organisation Catholique Canadienne pour le Développement et la Paix, Secours Catholique, Kirche in Not, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, the Secretariat of Caritas in French-speaking Africa, Caritas Aotearoa (New Zealand), Caritas Bolivia, Caritas Spain, Caritas Mozambique, Misereor, Österreichische Caritaszentrale, the Knights of Malta.
And there are thousands more.
Grade? Actual service to children worldwide: B+/A- (actually far better than they way they are choosing to fight to the abortion battle) Public Relations/Decibel Level: D
“fear-mongering”? No. Fear-inspiring, yes. Is it fear-mongering to tell a 4 year old not to play with fire? Parents are obliged to do that
So as I see it, the ultimate practical moral problem in all of this is: how great a risk is permissible when consequences can include the possibilities of a child with no active father?
If you’re looking for a practical way to achieve abstinence through fear, telling a kid that the chances of preganacy are one in a thousand with the pill probably won’t do the job.
Anyhow, the risk of pregnancy has no bearing on the moral problem. One assumes extramarital sex would still be considered immoral even if there was zero chance of pregnancy.
In any event, parents, the church and other authority figures have been attempting to instill fear for years. How well has it worked? It becomes even less credible (if that’s possible) when the rhetoric is overheated and exagerated. The truth is there is probably a lot more fear on the part of the parents, who most likely bear the brunt of the consequences.
Unfortunately, as much as parents would prefer otherwise, the onset of sexuality and the potency it confers happens when it happens. It is not like the decision about whether or not the the kid can be trusted with the keys to the familly car.
She got pregnant. She had a baby. If you take away the “choice” part, her story would be a lot less inspirational, no? Why congratulate her for being no better than she should be required by law to be, according to many who post here?
As a pro-choice person who once earnestly tried to persuade a friend not to go through with an abortion, I know that Ms. Dodd is incorrectly universalizing from her own limited experience.
Why congratulate her for being no better than she should be required by law to be, according to many who post here?
I don’t know, I think I’d congratulate a teenager who stood firm against virtually irresistible peer pressure to use drugs along with his friends, even if using drugs is illegal.
Antonio –
Those FDA figures are for only one year’s use of the pill. Aren’t the odds of getting pregnant much greater if a woman uses the pill for, say, 30 years? (Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m no statistician.)
But even if the odds aren’t greater, I still think .04 per thoustand is too great a risk.
Also, although I do beat the drums for chastity (and we haven’t even touched on odds that the contraceptives will be used improperly), I do think that there are some exceptions to some natural laws. But that’s a separate issue.
Why must this familiar, false, most-un-Catholic division always arise: Dodd writes movingly of the rights of unborn children, while telling us–uncritically–that she was preparing to go to war; a war that has killed many innocent children. It is a seamless garment, no? One can’t condone killing Iraqi children while decrying killing American ones.
Maria, that seems unfair to me for a couple of reasons — first, if she was joining the army 10 years ago, she wasn’t signing up for the war in Iraq. And it also seems unfair to equate military service, in Iraq or anywhere else, with “killing innocent children.” That happens in war, of course, and it’s reprehensible, but it’s a leap to make anyone who joins the armed forces responsible for it.
Jim, your analogy needs to add a crowd of people saying “Take it!”
Antonio –
Granted, fear alone is not likely to determine sexual behavior. No, wait — it certainly did for my generation and previous ones. We were afraid of getting pregnant if we had sex — because we knew the consequences for us and our child. This is why there were shot-gun weddings. They were never a good solution, but everyone knew that kids needed fathers.
You say, “Anyhow, the risk of pregnancy has no bearing on the moral problem. One assumes extramarital sex would still be considered immoral even if there was zero chance of pregnancy.”
Not where I come from. I’m from sensate Sin City. You know. The place God threw a catastrophic hurricane at because it is so sensate/sinful.
True, some cultures are Puritanical. Examples are those of the Vatican and of the American bishops. But I don’t thnk their thinking on the matter is part of natural law, or “virtue ethics” as it’s called these days..
Bill Collier (and Barbara?) –
Yes, Fr. Martin’s meditation on St. Joseph as father makes a rarely made point.
I would also like to hear from Barbara what she thinks about the role of fathers in a child’s life.. I’d like an update on her celebrated Dan Quayle article.
I see a parallel between every mother (and particularly, this mother) and our Blessed Mother, don’t you?
Mark,
I think we’re so far apart on this one that anything I say is more likely to widen the gap than to bridge it.
Granted, fear alone is not likely to determine sexual behavior. No, wait — it certainly did for my generation and previous ones. We were afraid of getting pregnant if we had sex — because we knew the consequences for us and our child. This is why there were shot-gun weddings. They were never a good solution, but everyone knew that kids needed fathers.
To my original point: like it or not, college-age kids (which is what we’re speaking about here) are most certainly independent moral agents. That being so, they are going to make their own decisions about what constitutes acceptable risk, regardless of what I think. Sure, I have my views about that and I’d clearly make them known but since it’s their decision, I’d prefer that it not be made out of ignorance.
David–
No problem, some day that gap will be bridged. I am surprised you’d see that statement as an example of unbridgeable difference, though.
I would also like to hear from Barbara what she thinks about the role of fathers in a child’s life.. I’d like an update on her celebrated Dan Quayle article.
Wait, are you suggesting that the “Barbara” who posts here is Barbara Dafoe Whitehead?
Mr. Buck –
I could, of course, be wrong in my assumption, but since Barabara Dafoe Whitehead writes for Commonweal sometimes, and because our Barbara obviously has the intelligence and learning and, above all, the courage to go counter-cultural when she thinks it’s necessary, I have made that assumption.
But even if our Barbara isn’t that Barbara, I’d still like to hear her opinion about the necessity of fathers. I value her opinions greatly, even when I don’t agree.
Crystal,
Pregnancy is not a disease, and killing the child is not a treatment.
Maria,
Read Catholic teaching on service in the military. Our servicemen and servicewomen are prepared to go to war out of service to our legitimate government and the people of the United States. Further, our military worked to protect Iraqi children, to build them schools and playgrounds, bring electricity to Iraqi homes, etc. Our military people do not go to war with the intention of killing innocent children. Sometimes that’s an unfortunate byproduct of war, but it’s not comparable to abortion, where an innocent death is the intention of the procedure.
I’m a little stymied about why this story is being used as an argument against President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame and not as a cautionary tale about the attitude of baby Mary’s father, who disappears from the story.
President Obama, as far as I can see, did nothing to persuade Lacy to have an abortion, nor did he in any way block her from having and keeping her child. President Obama is guilty of nothing more than most Protestants in being ambivalent about abortion, and saying in public several times that steps should be taken to reduce the number of abortions.
Baby Mary’s father, on the other hand, a product of Notre Dame and, presumably a Catholic, seems to have enthusiastically urged his girlfriend to abort his daughter, offering to take her to the doctor himself, and plays no role in her life.
As the mother of a 13-year-old boy being raised Catholic, I’ve talked early and often to my kid about a man’s responsibilities to his children, born and unborn, about his duty to respect and support their mother.
I’d like to see Catholics talking less about heroic single moms (not that they aren’t inspiring) and the legislative aspects of abortion (not that this oughtn’t to be wrestled with), and more about how we raise boys to be good men and good fathers.
Will preventing President Obama from appearing at Notre Dame or any other Catholic institution further this effort?
Seems doubtful to me.
Jean,
I definitely agree that raising good men is absolutely a key. Obama, however, is pursuing a legislative agenda that promotes abortion both in the US and around the world. Every abortion results in (at least) one innocent human killed. When Catholics compare any other issue to this, give President Obama an honorary doctorate of laws, etc., they obfuscate this essential truth.
On the most fundamental issue, Barack Obama fails to uphold his responsibility as a political leader. He has an obligation to stop the killing of innocents under his jurisdiction, and he fails to meet that. Instead, he is pushing to fund the death of innocents with public money, and to promote the culture of death around the world. He does not derive his authority from the natural law, but rather acts as a chief breaker of it, thus his presidency is inherently unjust. Recognizing him as an honorary teacher of the law is obviously inappropriate, and it makes our stance in favor of human life look like it really is just “dining room talk.” It’s not.
Mike wrote …
Crystal, Pregnancy is not a disease, and killing the child is not a treatment.
I didn’t say it was a disease or that abortion was its cure. Not sure how you came up with that idea.
Instead, he is pushing to fund the death of innocents with public money, and to promote the culture of death around the world.
Mike M,
Could you be more specific in your accusations? What is his “legislative agenda that promotes abortion both in the US and around the world”? Can you name any specific bills? You can’t have a legislative agenda without legislation. Exactly how is he pushing to fund the death of innocents with public money? How is he attempting to promote the culture of death around the world?
That his presidency is “inherently unjust” is an accusation I haven’t heard before. Are you questioning his legitimacy as president?
No problem, some day that gap will be bridged. I am surprised you’d see that statement as an example of unbridgeable difference, though.
Mark,
To be clear, we could probably come to some agreement on similarities and differences between Mary, the mother of Jesus, and other mothers (including the mother who wrote the article), but I don’t think we could come to an agreement on the overall issue of how a secular, pluralistic democracy ought to deal with abortion, or whether Obama is so tainted by his views on abortion that it is inappropriate to honor him at Notre Dame.
Mike, if raising good men is key, then why do we focus so much energy on President Obama at Notre Dame? Notre Dame may be at fault for inviting a pro-life President to speak. But legions of Catholics are at fault for not raising better men than the one who impregnated Lacy.
If just a small percentage of the time and hot air wasted on Obama at Notre Dame could be redirected to the kids in my son’s confirmation program–and I suspect other confirmation programs–that is arid, irrelevant, and fomenting a kind of mind-numbing boredom that makes kids yearn for confirmation so they can quit going to Mass–perhaps we’d have fewer stories about unwed mothers like Lacy.
While I’m in rant mode, I’ll also say that I thought the whole notion of Lacy’s being “rewarded” with a baby for making the right decision is utterly offensive on two levels:
1) The idea of a baby as a “reward” for anything is dehumanizing, ironically an attitude that fosters abortion.
2) It’s an insult to those of us who have lost babies through miscarriage and stillbirth in that it implies that somewhere along the line we are being punished for a bad decision.
OK, done now. Resume flogging that “culture of death” horse as you will, but it just ain’t working for some of us.
Jean–
I couldn’t agree more that we need to raise boys to be better men. Here’s where I think we don’t agree. Don’t you think the cad would have been less likely to pressure the woman he got pregnant into having an abortion if abortion were illegal? If he might have had to serve time, or have been penalized in some other way? I always cringe when I hear feminists talk about reproductive rights–are they too dense to realize that keeping abortion legal empowers men, and objectifies women? Good laws help to make good men.
We have to improve in taking care of children and valuing the gift of life. But to say that abortion is worse than war is wrong in every way. But it takes a long time to be able to take all that glorifying we are exposed to about war out of our consciousness.
Mike M. –
During at least the first 1300 years of the Catholic Church it taught that the fetus wasn’t a person until weeks and weeks if not months after conception. And though the Church during those days taught that abortion was wrong, it didn’t say it was a mortal sin.
The question of ensoulment is still being argued by Catholici moral theologians. Even JP II admits in Splendor Veritas that the moment of ensoulment has not been defined by the Church. (He’s not really consistent about that, but he did see that there was a problem.)
As I see it, in matters of abortion the American hierarchy tries to be more Catholic than the popes. Both JP II and Benedict have been more open to dialogue with those who disagree with them. than our bishops have been. Pity. Further, the ones who distort the facts about those who disagree with them will, no doubt, have a lot to answer for when they face the Lord. They are leading their sheep astray; One may not lie about an opponent to gain agreement.
This thread is a good example of the effect of the poison that has been unleashed by MAG by her decision to conflate religion and politics in a provocative way. I think that both her intent and her action bear more scrutiny.
Mary Ann Glendon has chosen a very particular way to deal with an institution with which she has an important relationship. Because Glendon is one who looks far ahead, her choice must also be studied for what it shows about her prescriptions for American Catholicism and social morality across the board.
The questions are, what did she do – and what provoked her behavior?
In my view, in a thoroughly passive-aggressive, bishop-like way, she sought to punish ND, not by action, but by inaction that clearly communicated displeasure and disapproval. In her letter I found little of the “grace” identified by others, but much rancor.
Most of her stated reasons for the bailout I find unconvincing. Out of three reasons, the last two are easily dismissed, for reasons already aired here. It seems clear that “control” is the main issue, i.e., the control that the bishops tried, and failed, to exercise. I don’t think this control can be neatly separated into church/state boxes, though it may have originated in one or the other. Indeed, the control issue may be best understood by considering the religious and the political together.
Let us consider what one of her one-time collaborators had to say about dealing with institutions at a low point for conservatism in 1999:
“I believe that we probably have lost the culture war…..in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important. Therefore, what seems to me a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by…enemies of our traditional culture. What I mean by separation is, for example, what the homeschoolers have done. Faced with public school systems that no longer educate but instead ‘condition’ students with the attitudes demanded by Political Correctness, they have seceded. They have separated themselves from public schools and have created new institutions, new schools, in their homes. I think that we have to look at a whole series of possibilities for bypassing the institutions that are controlled by the enemy…..” from Letter to Conservatives by Paul M. Weyrich, February 1999
I wonder if MAG may be trying to force one of those strategic “separations” that Weyrich was hinting at? Or, “doubling down” as Ed Gleason has suggested?
Ann, the Church revised its position (if there even was a consistent position during the monstrous amount of time to which you refer, the history record is complex and varied) in light of new discoveries about biology.
Both Benedict and JPII believe that any surgical abortion is the killing of a person, and as such abortion is the most serious crime against humanity going…has been for some time now…and it really isn’t close. Far worse than war…about the only thing that’s in the running would be poverty and disease.
Charles –
JP II in Splendor Veritas says (see sections 60-63) that the moment of ensoulment has not been defined by the Church. He also says that the organism is a person from the first moment of conception, and he speaks ambiguously in those sections about “human beings”, “humans”, and “persons”. His position(s) are really quite contradictory so you can get anything you want of his statements. I don’t know what Benedict has had to say exactly.
I checked David Albert Jones’ fine “The Soul of the Embryo” and he says that during the middle ages the theologians all thought abortion was a mortal sin, but none of them thought it was homicide. Jones is a fine scholar, so I’ll concede the first point to you. However, I have yet to see any argument from any Catholic theologian medieval or not concerning why the early non-person has a person’s right to life. I keep asking, and so far no one has directed me to any. Do you know of any such arguments? I mean an argument(s) — not just unsubstantiated assertions.
Hi Anne, as you know, that section…along with the sections in Donum Vitae and Dignitas Personae…are referring to embryos. All surgical abortions kill what the Church specifically claims is a person.
Did you read my recent article in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy that I mentioned before? Here I make the argument that fetuses should count as persons because they are persons…not that the early non-person has a person’s right to life. (Though I think with regard to the embryo the actual argument would be for the right to life of an individual whose personhood is uncertain.)
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhn032?ijkey=zEkZX7RA4SualXW&keytype=ref
Ann, one thing I sometimes forget that also didn’t seem to occur to Ms. Dodd: Our president was raised by a mother who was, for most of his childhood, single, and who was even younger than Ms. Dodd. I suspect that he would not only have great sympathy for her (as he did for Bristol Palin), but that he would have a great deal of insight into the difficulties and the blessings, both, of being raised mostly by a mother. I don’t think it’s fair to generalize about single mother headed families. But I do think that in the long run, we simply can’t expect heroism to emerge as a routine occurrence in the day to day exigencies of raising a family. Ms. Dodd’s situation might be odd for Notre Dame graduates, but it is hardly unusual in the army itself, so I am guessing she found it to be a good fit for her predicament.
I find the disparate reaction of the posters by gender to be interesting all in its own right, another reminder that a Church run only by members of one sex can significantly fall wide of the mark of the perspective and insights of the other.
And I second everything Jean said about the baby being a “reward.” That is truly a creepy sentiment. Every time I look at my children I wonder what in the world I did in life to deserve them (in a good way), and I know the answer is, “nothing.” Life is just like that.
And to Maria: the answer to your question is, “because life is complicated and you can look the world over and not find many if any truly seamless garments.”
Mark, what would you put baby Mary’s father in jail FOR? Would you make it a crime to suggest someone get an abortion?
What saves the babies and helps their mothers is raising good men who are decent and responsible.
Jail is not going to fix somebody, and we’ve got prisons full of recidivists that prove that.
What would probably be more effective in preventing recidivism among men who sow their seed freely and then pressure women into having abortions or refuse to support their children would be castration.
How would you feel about that?
Jean, I am channeling my bitter self: Mark’s comment about making abortion illegal in order to save men from their worst impulses was par for the course of men the world over seeking to restrain women so that men aren’t overly tempted to give in to their animal desires. Whether it’s burqas, bound feet, or female genital mutilation, or just the worst fate imaginable for transgressing cultural norms, all of which are justified on essentially the same grounds, that is indeed how much of the world works. It’s hard work making people better than they need to be in any given situation.
Thanks to all for their participation. I think we’ve arrived at a natural cut-off point.