Barack Obama: The second Catholic president?
At the Immanent Frame, the sociologist of religion Michelle Dillon (author of a very good book, Catholic Identity: Balancing Reason, Faith and Power) sees a “Catholic sensibility” in Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame:
“I am not thinking of Obama’s references to the “imperfections of man” and to “original sin,” or to the invocation of “God’s creation”–though these religious references are important. More striking was how Obama, a non-Catholic, showed his ability to think and to talk like a Catholic. He empathically did this by vividly using in his address very particular experiences as grounds legitimating the validity of universal claims. During his speech, Obama exemplified the translation that necessarily occurs in everyday lived experience between universal principles of morality and the particularistic ways in which those principles get worked out on the ground by (imperfect) human beings. This he accomplished not by abstract talk about lofty principles but by the stories he told…”
Those stories would be the references to Father Hesburgh and Cardinal Bernardin. As intriguing as anything was Dillon’s, outro, in which she says that “Obama has put religion back in civil religion, and has achieved this not by simply invoking religious words in public setting (”God bless America”), but by deploying a narrative style that both fits with, and gives lived experience, to the theological argument that universal moral principles are a society’s foundation and anchor.”
She also notes that Obama’s speech is “unlikely to change the passions and fundamental moral divisions that exist around abortion.” And the comments below her piece have some interesting pushback from the likes of Rick Garnett and Tom Farr. Check it out…
on May 20th, 2009 at 10:49 am
These are interesting times indeed where a post-modernist is given credit for “legitimating the validity of universal claims” which have no existence in his ontology. And then, and this is the really delicious part, he is described as “think[ing] and to talk[ing] like a Catholic” by using the argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy to do so. Maybe it was meant to be toung-in-cheek, but in this age of the celebrity cult and all that, it did not read that way to me.
on May 20th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Hmmm, Catholic sensibility? Christ was never known as a compromiser. Christ is Truth, not compromise.
on May 20th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Yes, his support for withholding medical treatment for infants surviving abortion attempts certainly looks Catholic. Perhaps Michelle Dillon will get hired as a spin-doctor for President Obama; she is very talented in that area.
on May 20th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Snarky comments aside, all of the blog articles and comments on this issue make me want to say two things:
One, Obama’s character is as reconciler and unifier, at a very deep level. I find this to be a wonderfully unexpected attribute in a president, and his speech certainly communicated that exact message. I think much of this comes out of his own experience, both personal and as a community organizer. A commenter on another thread suggested that his c.o. background means he simply gains and works with leverage. That may be true when he’s pushing through a budget or a health care plan or fuel economy standards – he’s going to figure out a way to try to align the interests of the various parties, as well as use the leverage he has. But I think he is well aware (civil rights, anyone?) that some issues are not like these others – and abortion is one of them. He acknowledged this in the speech, saying that at a certain level the positions are irreconciliable. So the challenge for him is really going to be in the practice – for example, he really does need to act on the kinds of common-ground projects he identifies, and the upcoming Supreme Court appointment is a big test – no one expects a Roberts or a Scalia, but there are certainly differences among Roe backers about, for example, the legality of particular abortion regulations, of protests, etc. If he appoints a Roe absolutist, it will be hard to take his rhetoric seriously. But it’s equally true that many in his own party want a total, no-holds-barred jurist who will defend Roe and Casey to the hilt. So what will he do? I am hopeful that his common ground rhetoric is real – he is smart enough to recognize how destructive the culture war politics are, and he’s sincere in his desire to somehow transcend them. But it’s not easy. It would be nice to think that Catholics would be there to hold him accountable for seeking the common ground over against extremists in his own party. We’ll see. Certainly he has a sincere desire for the common good.
Two, however, it is depressing to see so many pro-lifers decide that instead of engaging on what the President is doing, pressing him to walk the walk, also with a recognition that (as some have commented elsewhere) the pro-choice position is increasingly showing its logical incoherence and popular fragility – instead of engaging, they decide to heckle, name-call, protest, etc. I cannot understand how this is faithful, Christ-like behavior – it seems neither faithful nor effective. It is demeaning to themselves and to those whom they attack. It lacks respect. Pro-lifers are making an argument whose ultimate plausibility rests on the idea of the respect for all life, for everyone. Doing it in a way that shows disrespect for others by attacking them personally and not engaging them in good faith is absolutely terrible for the pro-life cause. No, wait, it’s terrible for Jesus’ cause. It is no witness to Christ, even if it is a witness to the teachings of Christ. Kudos to the grown-ups at L’Osservatore Romano.
on May 20th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I always thought he was a Commonweal Catholic.
1. Pro universal health care.
2. Pro amnesty.
3. Gets mildly uncomfortable at the mention of abortion.
on May 20th, 2009 at 11:56 am
David, you have made the points very well. But I fear that the ‘ snarky comments’ are possibly agreed upon talking points for the anti-Obama people. And that is including hard line bishops, one of whom says ‘honors were obscene’. It’s been 3 days and we have not heard even a hint from any of ‘them’..such as ‘Obama’s call for common ground gives me/us hope that the scourge of abortions can be reduced’… Let’s give ‘them’ another week or so, maybe even wait to the next USCCB meeting.. June?..However I afraid that in politics and yes this is politics, ’stepping up’ has to be timely or the train leaves the station… and wouldn’t that be a shame for the next eight years..Prayer is called for here..
on May 20th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Maybe I was wrong about ‘them’ having a week or two…the ‘train came early and has left the station ..see NY Daily News headline.
“Report chronicles widespread, horrific abuse in Ireland’s Catholic-run reformatories and orphanages’
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/20/2009-05-20_report_chronicles_widespred_horrific_abuse_in_irelands_catholicrun_reformatories.html#ixzz0G4HR9FWA&B
on May 20th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Thanks also to David Cloutier. Again, I think the reaction against Obama’s speech has been so shallow that it makes one wonder what the pro-life movement is doing for a strategy. Doesn’t seem to be one. I fear that that will hurt the pro-life cause.
on May 20th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Yes, and here is another very disturbing report out of Lincoln Nebraska with respect to the management of Catholic elementary & high schools in that diocese:
Schools’ responses to Obama’s Notre Dame visit differ
http://www.theindependent.com/articles/2009/05/18/news/local/doc4a11f1d905d98385475225.txt
These bishops are simply dangerous.
on May 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Footnote to Ed’s post – the impact on the Irish Church is awful and horrendous. In the meantime here, David is right – predictable responses by the “usual suspects.”
on May 20th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
John Borst: If it’s any consolation, shcools like St. Cecilia’s won’t be around for much longer to disturb you after the new labor, education, and tax laws are passed.
on May 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
David, no offense is intended, but I find it bizarre or myopic that because “Obama exemplified the translation that necessarily occurs in everyday lived experience between universal principles of morality and the particularistic ways in which those principles get worked out on the ground by (imperfect) human beings” he should be characterized as Catholic.
This is almost as bad as believers who admire the avowed atheist Albert Camus who are certain that he either was Catholic or would have converted if he had only lived long enough.
Okay, maybe not bizarre or myopic, maybe just overly self-referential?
on May 20th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Nancy –
Christ’s whole life was a compromise — God accepted a lesser form of life (human) to save those He loved. This did not make His life somehow “untrue”.
on May 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I have to thank Barbara. I thought it was just me, but I also don’t see why the rhetorical (sociological? theological?) device employed by the President translates into a communications format that demonstrates a Catholic sensibility. I have no problem with the President, or anybody else, evincing a Catholic sensibility, but I just don’t see it in the instance of the ND speech. I’ve seen several commentators mention the Protestant sensibility of the President’s comments about faith. I could recognize that sensibility to some degree, but I’m just not grasping Michelle Dillon’s point. The stories about Fr. Hesburgh and Cardinal Bernardin were a nice rhetorical touch, but were the lessons the listeners were to take away from the stories uniquely Catholic?
on May 20th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
David Gibson says: “I think the reaction against Obama’s speech has been so shallow that it makes one wonder what the pro-life movement is doing for a strategy.”
This is odd after you highlighted some of the most substantive reaction I’ve seem on this event from Professor Rick Garnett and others. Professor Garnett’s point that dialogue on abortion is difficult due to the Roe regime (which Obama clearly suuports) that makes legislative compromises nearly impossible. For example, many in the pro-life movement would accept a compromise that would allow states to prohibit post-viability abortions with exceptions for life of the mother. Roe & Casey doesn’t allow this discussion to take place because it has constitutionalized the pro-choice position that there can be no undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion.
Also, pointing out the concrete actions that President Obama has done on the issue of abortion (Dawn Johnsen, the former NARAL Legal Director who has compared pro-life groups to the KKK, as head of OLC is one that is often overlooked) is useful in showing whether the dialogue he wants us to engage in will actually be worthwhile and bear any fruit. I’m sure the dialogue isn’t helped by painting the varied responses to Obama with such a broad brush.
on May 20th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
MikeD, I get so tired of having to provide accurate information on this point. At least 45 states prohibit abortion after 24 weeks of gestation unless necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Roe v. Wade does not prohibit this regulation. It already exists.
on May 20th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The comparison as set forth by Dillon could certainly be seen as too self-referential, I suppose, as almost all these exercises can be. (Bruce Springsteen’s Catholic imagination, e.g.) But they can still have value–I think of Cathleen Kaveny’s writings about casuistry & prophecy in the “translation” between princples and everyday life.
I think a stronger argument for Obama’s “Catholic sensibility” (and I wasn’t setting that out too literally, more the way Bill Clinton was the first African-American president) is his communitarian worldview, combned with a stress on personal responsibility. Interesting, as far as it goes.
MikeD, I was mainly referring to the unhelpful snark from the ostensibly pro-life (anti-Obama?) commenters on this thread. But it is all too representative of the middle school level of response I’ve seen. Rck Garnett’s contributions are an exception, I find.
I think you suggestons for compromise are right on. That is the kind of engagement I think is needed. I don’t see why they are impossible at all, or what Dawn Johnsen has to do with this. Also, how do Roe and Casey prohibit restrictions so absolutely? There are plenty of conditions and restrictions that have been upheld at the state and federal level. No?
on May 20th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
PS: I see Barbara, who is much more informed than I, answered the Roe quesion. Thanks, Barbara.
So, bring on the engagement.
PS: In all of these discussions I see people talking past each other: The “Obama” camp, if you will, talking about compromise and dialogue of policy measures, the “pro-life” camp talking about the undebatable principle of the sanctity of all human life. Two different discussions.
on May 20th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
“So the challenge for him [i.e., President Obama] is really going to be in the practice – for example, he really does need to act on the kinds of common-ground projects he identifies, and the upcoming Supreme Court appointment is a big test ….”
I think David Cloutier makes an excellent point. Post-ND, the President’s actions on the issues of abortion and ESCR will be getting even more scrutiny (if that’s possible). The SC appointment is a big test. Even ardent pro-lifers like me don’t expect a justice who would vote to overturn Roe, but David is right that the selection of an ardent pro-choice advocate (e.g., Judge Wood) would send a very negative signal to pro-lifers interested in finding parcels of common ground. IMO, the President will also send a negative signal to Catholics in general if he chooses a pro-choice Catholic like Governor Granholm or Judge Sotomayor. (I don’t know one way or the other if Judge Sotomayor is a practicing Catholic, but she was raised as a Catholic.)
Another “big test” IMO, broken record on this that I am, is passage of the PWSA. It’s already been introduced in several different sessions of Congress, and on previous occasions it was referred to committee, where it languished and died when a session ended without any action having been taken. In the current session, the 111th Congress, the PWSA has been reintroduced in both legislative bodies, as S. 270 in the Senate and as H.R. 605 and H.R. 2035 in the House. (I’m not quite sure why the PWSA was reintroduced in both January and April of this year in the House, but the text of both bills seems to be identical.) Sen. Robert Casey, Jr.(D-PA), introduced S. 270; it presently has one co-sponsor, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). The House versions were reintroduced by Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN), and the PWSA in the House has 30 co-sponsors (a mix of Democrats and Republicans). Both the Senate and House versions of the PWSA have been referred to committees (the death knell?), with the House versions referred “for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker” (double death knell?).
I don’t pretend that the PWSA will resolve the abortion issue, but its focus on abortion reduction will hopefully appeal to both pro-lifers and pro-choicers seeking common ground. I expect there will be pushback from some pro-choice organizations to at least some aspects of the legislation, but enactment of the PWSA will hopefully save significant numbers of lives, and support of the legislation does not signal that one’s view on abortion–either pro-life or pro-choice–has been compromised in any way.
It’s time for President Obama to walk the walk of his ND talk by putting his chief executive influence and muscle behind the PWSA. It’s time for the rest of us to apply pressure on our legislators to enact the legislation asap.
A summary and the full text of the legislation can be found at this link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s270:
on May 20th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
William Collier, I think you (and David Cloutier) are right in that actions must follow words. I can’t see Obama appointing anyone who will overturn Roe–but that’s in keeping with the GOP presidents, who have named 12 of the last 14 justices. And Bush nearly appointed Harriet Miers!
As attractive as the PWSA is, I think any major policy initiatives will come in the fall, when the abortion reduction task force of pro-choicers and pro-lifers finishes its work. The goal, as enunciated, is to emerge with workable proosals that will garner broader support–a worthy endeavor. The PWSA or something like it may be part of that package.
on May 20th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
MAT,
I wonder if you would tell us what you mean when you call President Obama a post-modernist. I hear this term casually applied to him by more and more conservatives, but I really don’t know what they’re talking about. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
on May 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
About Obama’s appointment of Justice Souter’s replacement –
Obama is a constitutional lawyer. As such he must have respect for precedent. I do not see how he or any president who respects the Constitution can appoint someone who will vote to overturn an important decision simplybecause he/she thinks it’s immoral.
Many people anticipate that a pro-life president should and could do this. But it seems to me that that there is a huge problem with this. Although it is true that legality and morality are not always the same thing, for lawyers, it is generally a moral duty to uphold the law whether they approve of it or not. For members of the SC that means they are morally bound (by oath!) to uphold the Constitution AND the precedents of the Supreme Court.
But there have been some precedents which have been overthrown. I’d like to hear from the lawyers among us something about when, how, and why decisions may be lawfully overturned by the Supreme Court.
Even with my sparse knowledge, it seems to me that it must not be done without due and extremely careful consideration and that such consideration must point heavily in the direction of change. Perhaps most important, justification for the overthrow should be based on some sort of legal justification whereby it is admitted that there was something defective in the Constitution (an internal contradiction, perhaps?) or that there is strong evidence that the prior precedent was defective.
Or *are* there any requirements for overthrowing a Constitutional precedent?
I think this needs its own thread.
on May 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
“I can’t see Obama appointing anyone who will overturn Roe–but that’s in keeping with the GOP presidents, who have named 12 of the last 14 justices.
David G.: You may not be familiar with Supreme Court decisions, but in 1992 there was a quite famous case regarding abortion regulations in the Commonwealth of PA where four Justices wrote or joined opinions in favor of striking down Roe. Of those four, three were appointed by GOP Presidents. The current composition of the Court, according to the current President, contains four Justices who would certainly vote to overturn Roe (two were in the aforementioned group of three in 1992). All four of those Justices were appointed by GOP Presidents. I therefore do not understand your criticism of GOP judicial appointments with respect to overturning Roe.
on May 20th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
The appropriation of Catholic vocabulary by politicians is something that I saw in George W Bush’s first campaign. His compassionate conservatism was almost page for page Catholic social thinking.
Similarly for Obama, the drawing on personal experience to describe transcendental and universal yearnings or intuitions is another means of tapping into the resevoir of Catholic reflection from many contemporary theologians.
I think what these experiences show is that Catholic social thought does have a great deal of resonance for the public. It is capable of being translated into public lexicon. Trudeau did something very similar in Canada. Very few Canadians are aware of the profound impact that Catholic thinking had on his world view. (a particular kind of Catholic thinking that Michael Higgins has written about).
At any rate, the message I think for Catholics is that the Catholic social thought has a great deal of moral currency in our time. What is necessary is to move it to the public square to build a more just world irrespective of the partisan label that we want to attach to it.
on May 20th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Barbara,
Here is a good breakdown (from the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute) of the current laws in the U.S.: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf
Here is part of the intro that makes the point about Roe and it’s progeny:
“.. even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;” .. “health” in this context includes both physical and mental health; .. only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and .. states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.”
Basically, the abortion provider decides whether “viability” is an issue and if the “mental health” exception applies, without oversight or meaningful limitations. Any attempt to make the restictions more narrow than this (such as my suggested life only exception) will result in a guaranteed challenge to the constitutionality of the law by NARAL and the ACLU. Will either of these groups participate in a dialogue that is open to expanding legal limitations on abortion? Will any policy discussions require the pro-life side to affirm the Roe/Casey regime? This is why the legal framework within which the parties are allowed to propose solutions needs to be addressed in any such dialogue. If not, I’m not sure what other policies are open to debate (PWSA is great, but not sufficient in and of itself).
On the precedence issue, you can find lots of legal professors, including pro-choice ones, who will persuasively argue that Roe was wrongly decided based on the language of the constitution itself. Scientific changes have also shown that the trimester breakdown in Roe is also suspect. But as a lawyer I learned eary on in law school that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means on the particular day in question regardless of what was said yesterday (see, e.g., Brown v. Bd of Ed. & Lawrence v. Kansas).
on May 20th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Matthew Boudway: Post-modernism, in the context I was using it, was to describe the protagonist’s ontologically nominalist worldview.
on May 20th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
MAT,
And what is the evidence that Obama — I’m sorry, the protagonist — has a nominalist worldview?
I understand that you don’t like postmodernism. Neither do I, as a matter of fact. And I think you and I are in agreement that nominalism is a bad thing too, though we apparently disagree about whether nominalism and postmodernism are the same thing.
But no matter: let’s stick to your definition. Please give us a few examples of the president’s nominalism.
Ideas have consequences, yes, but not every bad consequence can be attributed to any bad idea.
on May 20th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
From yesterdays thread on Obama and Notre Dame: “When one side to a dispute argues exclusively for civility, it is often because it understands itself at least implicitly to be on the losing side of the substantive debate. That increasingly seems to be the state of abortion-rights advocates in America, and it is surely part of the reason for the gains abortion opponents have made in public opinion in recent years.” Very few people are pro-abortion. I submit, without proof from public opinion polls, that the argument for civility has nothing to do with which side one is on.
on May 20th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Yes, his support for withholding medical treatment for infants surviving abortion attempts certainly looks Catholic.
Bob Schwartz,
If you repeat this lie often enough, some people may begin to think it’s true. Evidence, please, or stop saying it.
on May 20th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Are we discussing Obama or Ockham?
The first time I had to write a paper on Catholic sensibilities back in the seminary I wrote on John Ford’s western classics, natural law and the role of the state. Even I didn’t believe my paper. I found the arguments for Bush’s “Catholic” social conservativism (some even going as far as to call him the FIRST Catholic president) as strained but comprehensible.
But to claim Obama’s use of personal experience and the didactic narrative as part of “Catholic heritage” is to stretch the words beyond recognition.
Next headline: Obama, first human president
“Obama’s latest speach is a perfect demonstration of his humanity. Not by some DNA test, nor any platonic or aristotelean concept of idea/form/species…but through his use of narratives he has demonstrated his close shared sympathies with humanity.”
Now I don’t care for Obama’s policies but neither do I think that the pro-life’s attack on Notre Dame was efficient, effective or sound public relations. But the constant coopting of this man is an intellectual activity akin to arguing over the architectual laws for castles in the sky.
For what it is worth, Shakespeare, Kierkegaard, T.S. Eliot, A. Camus, and Neitzsche have all been accused of “Catholic sensibilities” or sympathies and I have failed to find any of the arguments meaningful or valuable contributions to the analysis of their thoughts.
on May 20th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Ann: while the citation below is not a direct answer to your question: “Or *are* there any requirements for overthrowing a Constitutional precedent?” it is revealing nonetheless.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558781/posts
Snip:
“Prior decisions, however, do not bind the Supreme Court in a meaningful way. Precedent is a guidepost, not an endpoint. It is the interpretation of constitutional terms by particular justices in a particular context at a particular time. The interpretation may fit well with core sources of law and may provide insights to applying constitutional commands. But it also may have weak enough legal underpinning that it proves to be a fringe that ultimately will be cut out of the law, not a strand that weaves integrally into the law.”
“Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education illustrate that all precedents are not created equal, and show why precedents are – and should at times be – laid to rest. Plessy may or may not have been consistent with the original understanding of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, but it was distinctly at odds with the most obvious meaning of the clause as written and with what we know of the purposes of those who drafted the Amendment.”
on May 20th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Hmmm, Catholic sensibility? Christ was never known as a compromiser. Christ is Truth, not compromise.
Nancy,
Jesus wasn’t a politician, and WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) is rarely a helpful question. However, it seems to me that “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” was a compromise. Caesar, to the Jews of occupied Palestine, was a tyrant, so paying taxes (tribute) was not something they did happily.
Jesus also occasionally was open to persuasion and changed his mind.
on May 20th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Ann: I remembered and enjoyed Justice Roberts replies to stare decisis though both Biden and Obama voted against his becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court so I don’t know if Obama’s appointments will have similar views regarding stare decisis.
Here is a particularly good interchange between Roberts and Feinstein:
FEINSTEIN: Let me take you to yesterday morning and stare decisis.
FEINSTEIN: Because you specifically discussed, when you were asked about Roe and Casey, precedent. Specifically, as we said, workability, reliance, pragmatic considerations, changed facts or circumstances and whether the underlying legal or constitutional doctrine would still be valid. Are there any other factors that you think should be considered?
ROBERTS: Well, the court has been somewhat inconsistent on some other factors. They, for example, talked about, in some cases, the length of a precedent, the idea that the longer it’s been on the books, the more people have conformed their conduct to it. In other cases, they’ve suggested that’s not such an important consideration. In Payne v. Tennessee, the case said it noted how closely divided the court was and the prior case was a factor. But in other cases, the court has said that’s not a major consideration. So I put those factors on the table simply because, in some cases, the court looks to them; in others, it doesn’t. But I think the ones I mentioned yesterday are ones that apply in every case, including the settled expectations, the workability, whether the doctrinal basis of a decision have been eroded.
http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=JGRHearing.ask&dn=Day%203%20%2d%20Feinstein%20%2d%20Stare%20Decisis
Or read the entire thing at: http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=JGRHearing.ask
on May 20th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Geroeg D, and Adam M: A good point on the appropriation of Catholic vocabulary. I didn’t like it any better when it was used on Bush’s behalf. Another question, another thread: What would a “Catholic” president look like? Is such a thing possible?
on May 20th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Matthew Boudway: I actually do not think nominalism is a bad thing. I think it is value neutral. I do think it is bad metaphysics and has the deleterious effects on informal logic and argumentation I alluded to, but that is another matter. That being said, given that you ascribe a value judgement to it, it would not be productive for us to engage the point further as any attempt by myself to present evidence of the Commencement Speaker’s nomalism would be construed as tantamount to criticism and I do not want to imply – either directly or indirectly – any criticism towards the Speaker.
On a side note, I totally agree with you that nominalism and postmodernism are not necessarily the same thing. I do believe nominalism and antiessentialism are often elements of postmodernism and that was one of the contexts in which I used the term. How do you define the term?
on May 20th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
MAT:
Bad metaphysics — especially if it has “deleterious effects on informal logic and argumentation” — is a bad thing. How could it not be? But you say you won’t answer my question because you “do not want to imply — either directly or indirectly — any criticism towards the Speaker.” Since when? You’ve been directly criticizing Obama on this blog for months, and you’re welcome to. No need to turn dainty now.
I’m afraid your response confirms my first suspicion, which is that when conservatives say Obama is a postmodernist they mean: “We don’t like postmodernism; we don’t like Obama; ergo, Obama must be a postmodernist.” They’ll have to do better.
Or perhaps the claim is that if someone disagrees with you about an important moral or legal question, it must be because he is a relativist, and relativism equals postmodernism, which also sometimes equals nominalism.
All very confusing.
on May 20th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
David Gibson – I see you have all your interesting commenting conversations over here! Glad I found it! :)
on May 20th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
David G., regarding abortion, you talk about the “Obama camp” and the “Pro-Life camp”, but you left out the Catholic camp. What is the Catholic camp’s position on the issue of abortion?
David N., “Oh, Woman, great is your Faith.” What would Jesus do is a very helpful question, David. Why do you say that it is not? How can you follow Him unless you know who He is?
on May 20th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
In fairness, let’s not forget about the criticism of Bishops and the heirarchy of the Church on this blog as well.
on May 20th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
“Bad metaphysics — especially if it has “deleterious effects on informal logic and argumentation” — is a bad thing. How could it not be?”
I disagree with that. The death penalty is case in point. If someone is able to convince another party to abolish the practice using an argument based on an appeal to sympathy for example, I would imagine someone like myself opposed to the practice would think that not a bad thing. Frankly, I think much of the increase in self-identification as “pro-life” is based on exactly that fallacious logic and I will take it if it translated to legal protection for all human persons.
“But you say you won’t answer my question because you “do not want to imply — either directly or indirectly — any criticism towards the Speaker.” Since when? You’ve been directly criticizing Obama on this blog for months, and you’re welcome to. No need to turn dainty now.”
My recollection is I criticized the President directly three times and was warned all three occasions publicly and via private email by Commonweal representatives to cease the practice. I believe I have done so of late to the best of my abilities. Going forward, I will review my postings more closely for any perceived negative inferences and try to add more disclaimer language, which admittedly I have a spotty record of providing.
Since you see fit to question my motives I will question yours – you do not want examples, I was Moby Dick to your Ahab to vent about some perceived conservative abuse of the phrase post-modern which for whatever reason you seem passionate about. This is how this will play out – I will proffer an argument based on inductive reasoning; you will say an argument based on inductive logic is insufficient and I must produce a detailed, written summa by the President regarding his theory of metaphysics where he specifically refers to himself as a nominalist or post-modernist or whatever; I will reply that it does not exist (does it?); you will then tell me to stop “accusing” the President of being a post-modernist without the aforementioned evidence which is the minimum evidentiary standard; being a Stoic, I will concede as – your accusation notwithstanding – I do not attribute a value judgement to the phrase and the whole matter is beyond the control of my will. You will have vented and I will have wasted my time.
Long story short, if you think the President’s systematic use of fallacious informal logic evinces something other than his post-modern metaphysics, your definition of the phrase – which you seem to refuse to provide – is quite non-standard. I did a google search and here is how PBS defines the term:
“A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one’s own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.
Postmodernism is “post” because it is denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody – a characterisitic of the so-called “modern” mind. The paradox of the postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond questioning. As the philospher Richard Tarnas states, postmodernism “cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can the various metaphysical overviews against which the postmodern mind has defined itself.”"
If you do not think that definition applies to the President, we live in different worlds.
on May 20th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Early in this discussion, Mr Gibson made tow points which need some elaboration.
“One, Obama’s character is as reconciler and unifier, at a very deep level.” Peacemaker is the term in the Beatitudes, though “peace” has been stolen too often for cover by the warlords. Peace has nothing to do with compromise. It is about bringing opponents together without fighting. It is the ‘both/and’ sensibility that is usually ascribed to Catholic thought.
“Two, however, it is depressing to see so many pro-lifers decide that… instead of engaging, they decide to heckle, name-call, protest, etc.” This is indicative of an ‘either/or’ sensibility that is not generally perceived as Catholic. IOW, many of the Catholics in this discussion, including some bishops, do not display a Catholic sensibility.
So why do I call the both/and a Catholic sensibility, and an either/or sensibility as not Catholic? The roots are in David Tracy assessment of Catholic and Protestant classics. I suspect these ideas are behind Ms Dillon’s remarks about Catholic sensibility. Some here probably disagree on these ideas, but they do have some intellectual pedigree. In any event, the Catholic sensibility is not necessarily the sensibility of all Catholics; it may not even be characteristic of the Polish and German Popes of the last 30 years.
Tracy btw has been a professor at the U of Chicago for 35+ years, and so a colleague of the Obamas for about half that time. UofC has an odd relationship with Catholic thought, going back at least to the philosopher Mortimer Adler, who considered himself a Jewish Neo-Thomist in some respects. There are things “at a very deep level” at the university that probably have influenced Obama and others there.
on May 20th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
MAT wrote:
John Borst: If it’s any consolation, shools like St. Cecilia’s won’t be around for much longer to disturb you after the new labor, education, and tax laws are passed.
I think I am as aware of the decline in Catholic schools in the USA as well as most Catholics but I am not aware of the “labour, education, or tax laws” to which you refer. Are these State or Federal? Is Pennsylvania your example of a labour act? if so it should have no effect on the operation of the schools.
To what education changes are you referring? The creation of safe environments for LGBT students? How and where are tax laws going to change? As I see it they are not much help as it is?
On a more positive note there is an interesting report which has its pro-life readers apoplectic at the Catholic News Agency:
Pelosi and Sebelius are examples of Trinity’s Catholic education, president claims
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16051
Perhaps what Fr. Jenkins has done is made it more possible for other Presidents to take on the radicals within the pro-life movement, in which case it cannot be considered a gain for them.
on May 21st, 2009 at 12:37 am
John Borst: State laws? How quaint. The CY09 Presidential address to a joint session of Congress is a good place to start regarding the Government’s plans for K-12 education and beyond, for that matter. I don’t have the energy to find the link. Try youtube. Another good starting point for your research would be to read the FY2010 federal budget. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/ You will find there proposed changes to Sec 170 of the Code for example. There is also an executive summary regarding the Department of Education and a very detailed appendix on the same topic. Regarding other federal legislation which will impact Catholic primary and secondary education, just browse the legislative calendars and there are plenty of links to the texts of the relevant bills. Here is the link for the calendars: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/calendars/index.html. HR 1409 is a good example of proposed labor law changes which will impact Catholic schools.
on May 21st, 2009 at 8:50 am
MAT-
State laws-quaint? How quaint for an American to be cynical about State jurisdiction. Isn’t that what made the USA unique and something that Americans are proud of.
Anyway, I scanned your first link and see nothing in it that is a direct threat to Catholic schools unless making the public system better is seen as a threat. It is all just so much more of the same.
As for the calendar/labour link…it didn’t work but I found it but I didn’t find HR1409.
I’ll tell you what. If you write a piece presenting your thesis that this administration’s education initiatives will hurt Catholic education in the USA, I will post it at the Spiritans’ blog on Catholic education.
I would prefer you real name and some bio to give it credibility.then maybe I can learn something too.
John Borst, editor, Tomorrow’s Trust: A Review of Catholic of Education
on May 21st, 2009 at 9:22 am
Getting back to the title of the thread – namely Obama as the second Catholic president.
It is difficult to assess the degree to which his (or anybody’s) statecraft mirror Catholic thinking since there are so many issues that the Church itself is sorting out.
1. The Church’s relationship with the Modern world.
2. Religious Freedom/freedom of conscience.
3. Democracy.
All of these issues were addressed at the Second Vatican Council whose legacy and ultimate interpretation is still in process.
I think that obviously abortion can never be understood other than what it is – violence and a falling away from life. At issue is how to respond from a social, cultural and legal perspective and on that point there simply is no consensus by which to craft a workable legislative solution. I agree with Fr. Imbelli in another post that in point of fact the pro-life forces are ascending. And this makes sense because as soon as you move the abortion debate away from the rights arena (where the pro-choice side is stronger politically) and into the moral and spiritual arena (where the pro-life side is stronger) we move closer to “common ground”.
I note that Obama has been the first prominent official, as far as I recall, who framed abortion as a moral and spiritual issue. He explicitly stated that pro-choice advocates make a mistake when they focus on only the one side of that question.
Ultimately though I think it is a mistake to invest in the presidency the moral weight that it has been given in modern times. It is almost like an elected monarch with the whole divine right of kings or quasi- religious status owed to the position.
The US framers were correct, I think, that the government that governs least governs best. The Church simply needs to embrace this as a political principle but I don’t think that she is quite there yet. And this points of the fundamental problem for Catholics in public life and church doctrine – the relationship between Church and state. This is a debate that has been happening since the time of Augustine and slightly before.
However, as Cardinal Ratzinger once noted the church is moving into a pre-Constantinian phase. Pretty hard to dislodge almost 1700 years worth of history regarding Caesar.
on May 21st, 2009 at 9:38 am
John Borst: You asked for documents. I provided you with several links. You “scanned” part of one, didn’t take the time to find HR 1409, and presumably did no research on changes to the Code. You clearly just want to pick a fight so I have better things to do.
Regarding your Federalism comments, yes, I could not a agree with you more. These are indeed tragic times for Federalists.
on May 21st, 2009 at 9:57 am
I agree with George D that the key problem is about the relationship of the Church and State.
If abortion were criminalized the next issue for Church/State mixers would be how the rachet up penalties to enforce compliance. The Church authorities have been reluctant to abandon it’s eagerness to ‘mix’ it up with State power. Recent Irish scandal in State supported religious institutions is the latest example of this toxic mix…
I put my hope in pursuing the above posts strategy namely;
“the point of fact the pro-life forces are ascending. And this makes sense because as soon as you move the abortion debate away from the rights arena (where the pro-choice side is stronger politically) and into the moral and spiritual arena (where the pro-life side is stronger) we move closer to “common ground”.
This means to me that the pursuit of law change is futile because the codifying of moral and spiritual notions is the problem in our democratic secular society. .Pro-life needs to win and is winning on the field of values… law change is not going to happen..
on May 21st, 2009 at 9:58 am
Interesting discussion(s) – one of the better ones recently.
Re: constructive/conciliatory engagement between the pro-life and pro-choice camps: David G., would you say Notre Dame’s extending of the invitation, and the President’s acceptance, as well as the content of the speech itself, is one example of such constructive engagement? Granted, I’m not sure if that engagement leads anywhere. (2) Is the President’s joint committee, or discussion group, or whatever it is, another example?
At any rate, it is incumbent on the President, as the holder of the office, the leader of the party that controls the executive and legislative branches, and as the representative / defender / champion of the legal status quo, to make the conciliatory “first move”. Perhaps the ND speech and the joint committee are that first move. Personally, I’d like to see it move to the level of legislation, such as the PWSA. And I agree with David Cloutier that the nomination of Justice Souter’s replacement will be important, too. A third important area is more latitude given within the Democratic Party itself to the pro-life agenda. In all three of these areas, though, clearly it is up to the President to make that first gesture toward common agreement.
If he does so, he will find many pro-life advocates of good will, including the Catholic Bishops, ready to engage him constructively. At the same time, there would be political risk/cost for him: he would surely take heat from his own political base. Istm he has shown some willingness to do this already, although not on life issues.
on May 21st, 2009 at 10:02 am
I’m not sure about Catholic sensibility in Obama, but his referncing of Bernandin and Hesburgh make me think of how the issue of Catholic leadership behaves is critical.
While some here, by the way, think that criticizing the hierachy is wrong per se, I submit it’s part of the childishness that some leaders want to reinculcate.
Ed Gleason noted the horrors the Church in Ireland is now facing (pace the best face William donohue is trying to put on it and will probably spark even deeper anger,)
A while back, I noted the new Bishop of St. Louis had ben seen by a number of priests in his former diocese, Saginaw, as a”company man”.
Now his replacement in Saginaw is named, an auxiliary from Philadelphia who was cited in the grand jury report there for not handling sex abuse problems well. He tipped his hat with an “I’m sorry,” statement but moves up the company ladder of success, just as many of Law’s loyal henchmen did before.
I could ay more about this group of”leaders”,, including the tension between “positive orthodoxy” and “muscular Chrisitanity,” but it’s easy, from my perspective, to see why the “sensibility” of folks like Bernandin and Hesburgh represented where many Catholics, including some who have drifted on, is seen as where real leadeship should be.
Folks here will want to say Obama should do this or that(sometimes rightly) but we need leadership to act rightly if we want our message to be heard clearly.
on May 21st, 2009 at 10:09 am
Hi, MAT and Matthew, I’d like to hear more about the President as post-modernist (MAT); or, (Matthew), if he is not a post-modernist, how would you describe his approach/mode of thought?
I have to admit that I don’t see him as an outstanding example of post-modernist thought. But maybe there are aspects that I’m not thinking of.
Too me, he seems to be a liberal Protestant (and perhaps that’s not always mutually exclusive of post-modernism). But that’s just an off-the-cuff assessment on my part.
on May 21st, 2009 at 10:35 am
MAT:
If memory serves, Moby Dick was silent. The heroic fulminations were all Ahab’s.
Your point about bad metaphysics not being bad if they produce good social results is a silly one — and an example of the “fallacious informal logic” you attribute (again, without evidence) to the president. If a bad argument convinces someone to do a good thing, you can approve of the good thing they’ve done without approving of the bad argument. Metaphysics is not the handmaiden of ethics: it has its own integrity, its own purpose. Its aim is truth. False metaphysics is bad metaphysics, no matter what its accidental effects. (One may of course think that all metaphysical systems are false, but that itself is a metaphysical claim, which cannot be verified by appeal to ethics.)
Your recollection about what you’ve said on this blog, and what you’ve been told not to say, is another dodge, and not so artful. People criticize President Obama all the time on this blog. When their criticism degenerates into obloquy, we sometimes correct them. If their obloquy becomes routine, we ask them to go elsewhere. Nothing I could say would convince you that such interventions are not political, but nothing you have mentioned demonstrates that your reservations about Obama’s philosophical tendencies are not welcome at dotCommonweal.
Since you’re not into wasting time, it was good of you to hunt down that definition of postmodernism from Professor PBS. I object to none of it. And no, in fact, I don’t think that definition applies to Obama. You say he’s guilty of bad logic (and then refuse to offer examples because you’re sure examples wouldn’t satisfy me, even though those are what I asked for — how well you know me!) But post-modernism, according to the definition you yourself furnish, is not about bad logic; it’s about believing that logic is just an entirely conventional set of rules that tells us nothing final about “the mind,” much less the world. In this sense, postmodernism is really just a new variation on a very old philosophical theme: skepticism. In his speech at Notre Dame, President Obama again and again referred to the common good. Now you may think his conception of the common good is superficial, or you may just disagree with it, but the important point here is that real postmodernists don’t believe in a common good, since they believe that human beings have nothing essential in common except their radical contingency. Again, when the president said that the prolife position was irreconcilable with the prochoice position, he wasn’t being postmodern; he was simply observing a hard fact: if prolifers are right, prochoicers are wrong, and vice versa. There is no way to reformulate the disagreement that will simply make it disappear. If he had said there’s no way to know who’s right — or that it doesn’t matter who’s right — that would have been postmodern. But he didn’t say these things, or anything like them.
on May 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am
MAT
I am not trying to pick a fight. My offer was serious. I am not an American. I do not know you language of governance. Your government’s website made no sense because of that fact.
I simply couldn’t na
on May 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Lets finish that message. Have no idea what I hit that sent the message.
I simply couldn’t navigate the site easily. Believe me I tried. I have no idea what you mean by “code” or where to look for it. As to HR 1409, found one list but 1409 wasn’t on it and didn’t know where to turn as an alternative.
The offer stands.
on May 21st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
John Borst, you go here (http://thomas.loc.gov/) and you search by bill number for H.R. 1409. It’s a labor law that will affect all employers not just Catholic schools by making it theoretically easier for unions to organize groups of employees.
Code = U.S. Code, which is the statutory compilation of codified laws in the United States. Each state also has its own state code.
on May 21st, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Wait … we had a first Catholic president?!
on May 21st, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Barbara,
Thanks for the direction and the explanation. I am aware of the concept behind H.R. 1409. I am now convinced that MAT is simply another pro-life radical who believes like Martino in Scranton that labour laws giving Catholic teachers the right to organize is somehow unCatholic and will lead to the system’s demise.
This is simply scare tactics. There is no evidence that Obama’s policies would do such a thing. Many diocesan schools successfully run with teachers’ unions. The real issues of declining students are demographic, social, economic and displeasure with the Church which boils down to bad management.
MAT demonstrates all the ideological biases without any evidence, I guess he picked up on my earlier reference. It is too bad he didn’t take me up on my invitation to express his view. I really would have posted it. Of course I would have invited someone else to critique it.
on May 22nd, 2009 at 8:43 am
F.Y.I., http://www.jillstanek.com/