The campus itself is very, very quiet--students studying for exams, etc. The fuss is on the border. You see some protesters driving to and from work. And not all the time. The plane, well, you miss it if you're inside working. But the trucks, with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses on the outside, drive around residential neighborhoods surrounding the campus. And that is quite troubling to some parents with small children --even prolife parents, who hadn't planned to explain abortion to their kids in carseats on the way to the supermarket.

I read Steinfels' column earlier today. And the lines that divide us threaten the Word that unites us more and more. Now I do trust in God using all things for good and my hope rests in that.That said, reading Cathleen's words hit me... students studying for finals and so forth, those graduating, preparing a new chapter in the midst of it all. As someone who, for good or ill, had a long and very slow conversion on life issues after I returned to church after a protracted absence, I find the shock images deeply challenging. Nothing of that sort ever turned my heart... I have written this in blog comment after blog comment and it has often invited fury, disdain and challenge.Yes I think that those images can shock one into changing one's mind in that moment, but what of deep and everlasting transformation? I rather think that God changes us with great love and not just with terrifying fear. If that is not the case, what is the point of incarnation? Which is itself so much at the heart of life.

It strikes me that Mr. Bottum's article was reasonable and well put. I fear I did enjoy his:" The left-leaning Jesuit magazine America, for instance, harrumphed its support of Catholic intellectuals who defend the richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition. Something in that adjectival pile-upah, the rich, subtle nuance!makes it sound more like wine tasting than ecclesiology".

I think the Jesuits are correct in what they wrote and are brave to speak up - it wasn't all that long ago that Fr. Reese SJ was replaced.

I see Finn et al gritting their teeth, clinching their fists, tightening their bowels, and saying "We want our way, and we want it now!!!"To which I respond, "Have a prune."When I first became involved in pro-life initiatives in 1975, I could make (as I would soon enough realize) such an ass of myself!Back then --- as today, most folks would like to see a reduction in abortion. Many folks (me, for instance) would like to see an end to all abortion. However, it ain't gonna' happen even if it were outlawed. We have, for example, the "hard cases" if nothing else to contend with.If Finn feels bad, I suggest he take up my offer. There's nothing to be served by working oneself up in a tizzy!

If one looks at the comments (almost 90 today) at the end of "Sectarian Catholicism, the deep division in the US Church is clear, as it is in the never ending discusins on right to life issues.I found the comment from a person from Norway germane - is this the most vital issue that American Catholics have, he asked?A time out from the hefty rhetoric, some search for some kind of common ground and mutual respect may no tbe a bad idea.

Shouldn't the savoring of Catholic truth be like wine-tasting? Didn't the Master compare every teacher to a husbandman who brings forth both new and old wine from his cellar?

With respect to Cathy's comment, above (12:04): I think my kids are starting to wonder why I keep telling them to tie their shoes, or check their seatbelts, just as we are passing by the intersection (1/4 mile from my house) where the sign-bearers and truck are!

Bottoms seems to get out of sorts when criticized while he feels free to blast anyone he feels like. Sensitivity should be made of sterner stuff. There has always been disagreement in the church. The early church never thought of violence as a solution while the Post 4th Century church had a thirst for murdering its enemies. For most of this time Emperors and Kings called the shots with sporadic forays of spiritual assertion by popes and bishops. The abortion escalation came precipitously with Law and Co after they effectively minimized Bernardine. What seemed their most triumphant moment, Cardinal O'Connor's funeral was their most shameful. Their utterances generate standing ovations but they are small and marginal and are able to influence beyond their numbers. A lot like Limbaugh. As we can see they have no following nor respect from the larger church. They have become a band of Ruffians embarassing everybody.

This point draws particular shame on Commonweal's blog contributors and commenters. Not exactly John 8 behavior.On the First Things website, a young woman named Lacy Dodd published an account of her pregnancy during her senior year and the pressure her boyfriend applied to talk her into an abortion. "Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama," she reasonably asked her alma mater, "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?" Commonweal put a notice of the article on its own website, and 83 comments later, the young woman had been called everything but a slut. Her story was "flimsy," "manipulative," "hardly fair," a "negative stereotype," "polemical"--and she was just "a horny kid," one of the "victims of the Russian roulette moral theory of premarital sex" so rampant in the protesters' troglodyte version of Catholicism.

Jason, as has already been noted, none of that is fair or accurate. No one here was calling Lacy Dodd names, and disagreeing that her conclusion vis-a-vis Notre Dame's invitation of Obama was "reasonable" is not tantamount to calling her a "slut." Note that, in his attempt to "draw shame" on this blog, Bottum had to lie about the context in which someone used the phrase "a horny kid" (go back and look it up; it had absolutely nothing to do with Dodd), as well as the context of the "Russian roulette" notion (an attack on the protesters' morality? Preposterous). I'm embarrassed for him.

Bob, I'm wondering about your sense of the dotcommonweal discussion. Did it go the way you wanted to go? What were you hoping for when you linked to Lacy Dodd's essay in First Things?I myself am always leery in teaching ethics of using compelling personal stories as the prism through which to view complicated ethical issues -- particularly if the person is in the room, virtually or in actuality. It's hard to separate the personal from the principled.

Cathy,I have no preconceptions regarding how a discussion might go. My interest is to hear a variety of voices on different issues, and I try from time to time to allow us who blog here to listen to the voice of someone who blogs elsewhere. However, though it may be challenging to separate the "personal" and the "principled," we are certainly called to do so and to be held accountable for lapses -- as Mollie called Joseph Bottum to account.I know a number of people who read the posts here who never comment. I find that unfortunate, if understandable. It constricts the conversation.

Mollie--I have to disagree with your opinion that none of Joseph Bottum's description of what took place on this blog was fair or accurate. I'm going from memory here, and while I do think he may have taken some words out of context, on the whole I think his characterization was both fair and accurate. My recollection is that many posts seemed to pay lip service to the woman's courage, while the main thrust of the post was critical (I seem to recall one prescient poster trying to discourage these posts, alas, to no avail). I think if you step back from it and look at the thread from a very high level, you have a woman who felt abandoned by people who should have supported her, who found the courage to do the right thing, and who painfully recounted what happened to her in the hopes that other women won't have to go through the same ordeal. And you also found people who took the time out of their busy dayto criticize her. What I find most disheartening is that I think many of these people were women.Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my opinion.Happy Mother's Day!

Personally, understand the tension and dilemma between using a "personal" story while at the same time trying to discuss, analyze, and study principles. On the other hand, appreciate the stories - IMHO, without the stories, we lose touch with reality and wind up discussing just ideas (I know, I am over-simplifying). I use the same approach when teaching history - chronology, historical facts are present but how you interpret and the passion/impact of historical events quickly changes for students when they read first hand accounts from participants in that historical event. In my opinion, they must struggle with witness' feelings, passions, ideologies, etc. and then analyze and provide an interpretation.Was wondering about inserting a "personal" story in to the NY state legislative debate on the Markey v Lopez bills but figured that it would open up debate and may elicit responses that we saw with Ms. Dodd. On the other hand, to date I find very little discussion that expresses the pain or point of view of a victim, victim's family, etc. Nor do we hear from priests who may have used inappropriate behaviors (not talking about pedophiles). It might force all of us to slow down and understand more angles before too quickly laying out a position.

The Dodd story was very moving in itself. But the connection drawn between the story and the the Obama invitation was hard to explore without engaging in, or appearing to engage in, criticism of her.

I think a connection can readily be drawn between her story and the Obama invitation without appearing to criticize her. It is a common and tragic story that legal abortion primarily serves to empower irresponsible men, and to create societal structures of sin that cruelly pit mother against child so that she feels she has no choice. Honoring Obama honors what he does, which is explicitly and enthusiastically prop up those structures of sin. His view on abortion is reassuring to irresponsible men and alienating to marginalized pregnant women. Church institutions honoring him communicate affirmance of the idea that abortion is a legitimate choice for a man to suggest and society to expect, minimizing a woman's (especially a Catholic woman's) instinct that abortion is a horrible evil she should not be even slightly pressured into, and enabling his favorite organization, Planned Parenthood, to profiatably counsel women that "you need to have an abortion."

Jason --yes, if one a) agrees that here story is relevant to the analysis of the Obama invite, in the way that she sees it as relevant, and b) agrees with her assessment of the Obama invite. Obviously you do, on both counts. But those who don't agree on either a or b, the conversation is much trickier. Whose experience counts? Whose story counts? Suppose Commonweal had published an equally compelling personal story of a woman who had an abortion because she had no financial support--her husband lost her job and she welcomed Obama's speech, because his commitment to social justice --and to helping mothers and babies--would help others avoid feel pressured into abortion because of financial circumstances, and care for her baby. How would you have responded to that story?

How an opposite story would be responded to from the perspective a pro-life liberal Catholic magazine's blog is not the question--the question is how this story could be and was responded to.

Jason--my point is this. If you agree with her, you're likely to find the story illuminating and helpful. If you don't agree with her, on either a or b, you're likely to find the story frustrating and unhelpful to the discussion. From a purely rhetorical stance, the story functions to emotionally pressure a reader into a choice: "If you support me, you will oppose Obama." What I was trying to do was get you to see that you would find an emotionally laden story which presented the opposite choice "If you support me, you will support Obama" similarly frustrating and distorting. The problem is structural: the use of a personal narrative to justify a position on a much larger, more complex issue. In both cases, those who agree are likely to find it illuminating; those who disagree are likely to find it emotionally manipulative. So rhetorically, the story does not function to persuade anyone who is not already persuaded. If anything, it exacerbates differences.

What you say is partially true--for some who disagree and some who agree. For others, the story is illustrative of the truth of the point to those who are not embedded in either camp. But this is not the point of Bottom's criticism, which is how the story was treated here. Your question of how we would react to the opposite story is partially illustrative. Only partially, because the opposite story could be dealt with by not dealing with the story at all, but only discussing the underlying issue of whether abortion is a good liberating choice, or whether offering abortion is a structure of sin that places women in an oppressed situation. Ironically, the real question in your hypo shouldn't be how would we react to the opposite story--it should be how would a Planned Parenthood blog react. With sympathy, and with agreement with its premises. How does this compare to how this blog reacts to the story? That is at the root of Bottom's criticism, which as usual is the rub of this problem, when the blog, or the University, claims to be committed to life but disagrees with all the major premises in action.

The thing here that's most ironic, though I'm starting to think there is a pattern, is that accusations like "emptionally manipulative" are coming from Catholic liberals. Liberals, who almost by definition use personal stories and compassion rather than Spock-like logic to form and defend their positions. Liberals who would decide such a thing as a court case by the exercise of "empathy". Liberals who ought to know the difference between the valuable contribution of a whole-person female perspective on an issue and crass emotional manipulation. It's as if such Catholic liberals direct most of their disdain against conservatives on every other issue, but when it comes to a personal story from a woman's pro-life perspective they, instead of expressing kinship, seem to themselves become the unfeeling conservatives they usually despise, to oppose the pro-lifer. (Like responding prophetically to torture and then prophetically prophetically condemning pro-lifers for being prophetic.) Do you then wonder why Catholic conservatives like Bottom would look at all this and say maybe you aren't really pro-life? Think about it from where he's sitting.

This post, in the way it was framed and the comments it provoked, strikes me as an especially low and unfortunate moment for dotCommonweal, but one that is sadly not unexpected or uncommon.

David,Talk about rhetorical. Would you elaborate?

Mark Proska (et al.) -- fortunately -- or unfortunately, depending on your perspective -- there's no need to rely on memory. The post in question is still online, along with the comments Bottum misrepresented and mischaracterized. Where Bottum is not completely misquoting what was said, he's conflating criticism of Dodd's argument with criticism of her person and her personal decisions -- which were, in fact, widely praised -- and genuinely, it seems to me. Anyone interested can see for themselves how dishonest it is to assert, as Bottum does, that "...America was soon joined by the other old-line American Catholic magazine, Commonweal, which could not bring itself to express the least sympathy for the protesters." That's wrong in a number of ways: first, a post on dotCommonweal is not equivalent to an editorial in the magazine. Second, comments on a post on dotCommonweal are even more obviously not the voice of the magazine. Third, even if there were an equivalency, the claim that our bloggers and commenters have been uniformly unsympathetic to "the protesters" in general, or Dodd in particular, is utterly false. Fr. Imbelli -- I'm wondering why you didn't call Bottum to account yourself when you read and linked to his piece?

What struck me about Bottum's piece was the theology: functionally, it seemed to say the essence of Catholic Christianity was opposition to abortion. How does that relate, Bob, to the need to evagelize by focusing on Christ?

David--I'm particularly interested in the part where it can be an especially low moment yet, at the same time, a not uncommon one. Seriously, though, I'd have to disagree, and strongly. For most part, I've found the discussion of this topic on this blog very interesting and informative, with all sides being represented. It's what makes this blog unique, in my opinion. There are always rough moments on blogs--I think you need to give posters a wider berth than normal, recognizing that the comments are often stream of consciousness, with little editing. An unforgiving blog reader is a novice blog reader. Ok, now back to the topic at hand.I have to say that anyone who can even remotely find this courageous woman's story "frustrating", "emotionally manipulative", or, that old stand-by, divisive, is so far from my thinking on this that it's a good thing the universe is still expanding. At the same time, I think it speaks volumes, in its own way. Let's return to the question that ended the woman's plea:"Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obamathe 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?"I've yet to hear a direct answer to this direct question from anyone who's supported Our Lady's invitation to Obama. In fact, the silence from certain quarters has been deafening, remindful of the scripture passage about a persecuted woman that ended with the mob walking away, one by one, beginning with the elders. (remember, wide berth)

Mark, I told you why I think this type of story is an inapt device through which to evaluate the invitation. I've spent a lot of time studying rhetoric and moral argument. I also told you why, I think, rhetorically, the story isn't going to convince anyone who isn't convinced about the invitation. But if you're going to resort to insults, then there's really no point in continuing to talk with you.

Mollie,Had I only linked Peter's piece, I would appear to have taken the high road. Had I linked only Joseph's comment about the thread on dotCom and critiqued it, I would have been applauded.As it is, in the midst of a blogosphere in which never the twain seem to meet, I selected to post two completely disparate readings of the America editorial by two prominent Catholic journalists and intellectuals. For me this was the interesting point. What other blog would give voice to both?I do not pretend to endorse every point made; and I welcome responsible critique from others of the views expressed. I think you were quite right to call Bottum to account. I hope he is reading this thread as well.But he also made some points about "Cathoic culture" which may be right or wrong or in-between. But they have not been mentioned.One does what one can to get people into conversation -- even virtually. Otherwise we are only taking to our "party." Talk about Novatianism!I think it might be interesting for the editors to initiate a post regarding the blog itself. What do folk feel its strengths and weaknesses to be. As I said above, there are many who read, but never comment. Why is that? Cathy, your question seems to me to be a non-sequitur from anything I have said here or elsewhere.

I was just surprised that you linked to Bottum's piece without noting (critically or otherwise) that it mentioned dotCommonweal -- especially since the post he's talking about was also one of yours. I hadn't read either article before I saw this thread, and Jason Drakes's quotation took me totally by surprise.

"this type of story is an inapt device through which to evaluate the invitation"Lacy Dodd related her own experience as a young, single, pregnant recent Notre Dame graduate, and how she would have experienced and does experience ND's honoring of the most prominent pro-abortion-choice politician in the country, as propping up her deadbeat boyfriend while alienating her own desire to choose life and love for her child. I don't see how her experience can be dismissed as "an inapt device" to consider these effects of pro-abortion-choice policy on actual pregnant women. I especially don't see how liberals, who typically criticize shrill, old, celibate male pro-lifers, could marginalize her speaking to this subject. It seems to me that conservatives are pro-life because they agree with Randall Terry, and liberals are pro-life because they agree with Lacy Dodd, but liberals who disagree with Lacy Dodd, well I honestly don't know what would make them pro-life. Catholic liberals who insist they are pro-life it seems to me would be empathetic and even enthusiastic about Dodd and her voice entering the discussion. "At last," Catholic liberals might say, "here is a young woman's personal experience speaking to this issue, instead of the usual conservative fare. I still think the Obama invitation is not wrong, but Lacy's experience is a valuable perspective on the question. Her perceptions of how she would feel by honoring Obama are tangible and legitimate, and I need to weigh the issue in a manner I didn't before." To instead call her story "emotionally manipulative" and an "inapt device" and the rest, it just doesn't make sense from the champions of empathy. As for Dodd's story being irrelevant because it doesn't convince anyone, that's just the opposite from all evidence, and perhaps wishful thinking. The story would not be so powerful, and she would not have garnered the reaction she garnered here, if it could be dismissed so casually.

I dont see how her experience can be dismissed as an inapt device to consider these effects of pro-abortion-choice policy on actual pregnant women.Jason, Cathy said it was "an inapt device through which to evaluate the invitation" -- not to consider the effects of policies. You are begging the question, which is: Does inviting the President to give the Commencement address indicate support for abortion? Or, put another way, can Notre Dame invite Obama and still communicate Church teaching on abortion and other life issues clearly and authentically? I think it can. You may disagree. But the problem with Dodd's argument is that it takes for granted the assertion that inviting Obama promotes abortion.

Jason, who has the story convinced that the invitation was wrong that was not already opposed to the invitation? As I read the reaction, it's that people who are already convinced the invitation was wrong use it as more grist for the mill. Do you have any evidence of lots and lots of people saying that this story changed their mind about the invitation? Because that's not my impression. By the way, if we're looking at Obama's policies, I think his "get tough on deadbeat dads" policy would be of a great deal of interest to someone in Ms. Dodd's situation. Obama wants to make it less likely that any unwed dad can simply walk away.

Okay Bob, let me spell it out.1. A Jean Raber said, over on Joe K.'s thread, "Fr. Imbelli and Joe Petit say that the central message of Christianity is the salvific action of Jesus Christ."2. Jody Bottum, as I read him, is here saying that at least functionally, the central message of Roman Catholicism in the U.S. is anti-abortion. I'm surprised to see that this doesn't worry you theologically. If his view is to hold, then we will be (centrally) in this culture a people defined by what we oppose --which is what I thought you were opposing on the other thread. Can one separate "theology" and 'culture" in this fashion? 3. In short, I thought you might have commented on the theological implications of Jody's piece in the WS for Catholic preaching and teaching.

As to Sectarian Catholicism, I think Fr. john Langan at Georgetown hit the nail on the head of how dangerous the appraoch of Bottums and his ilk are.Of course to Messrs. Proska and Drakes, he can be flipped off as another lefty jesuit.So much incisiveness!

Jason, do you think none of us has ever known an unwed mother? I think it ironic that Obama would probably have not just sympathy, but empathy, for Ms. Dodd, as the child of a young mother who was unceremoniously left to fend for herself by the father of her child (marrying her probably just made her life more complicated). Which shows, if nothing else, that two people can have similar experiences and come out with totally different conclusions. What was most annoying, to me, about Ms. Dodd was that she expected an emotional appeal to substitute for a logical analysis, and for her story to be accepted as having some sort of universal application. It wasn't an insult to her to evaluate her writing on its merits rather than its emotional content.

"Do you have any evidence of lots and lots of people saying that this story changed their mind about the invitation?"One could just as easily ask where your evidence is that "the story does not function to persuade anyone who is not already persuaded".We're all working off impressions here, unless someone has his own polling company and unlimited cash in his pockets. I argue the story has persuasive rhetorical value. If you want to dismiss it as 100% black and white, feel free to make that claim. But as I said, some significant evidence of its power is found in the backlash from places like this.

"2. Jody Bottum, as I read him, is here saying that at least functionally, the central message of Roman Catholicism in the U.S. is anti-abortion. Im surprised to see that this doesnt worry you theologically. If his view is to hold, then we will be (centrally) in this culture a people defined by what we oppose which is what I thought you were opposing on the other thread. Can one separate theology and culture in this fashion? "Cathleen, thank you for touching on this. Bottum actually took pains to write, "Opposition to abortion doesn't stand at the center of Catholic theology. It doesn't even stand at the center of Catholic faith." I believe the heart of his point follows shortly thereafter: "Opposition to abortion is the signpost at the intersection of Catholicism and American public life." So he doesn't seem to be saying that anti-abortion is the "central message of Roman Catholicism in the US". But he believes that abortion issue is the "sign-post" - that is, the universally-recognized landmark - of where our faith comes into contact with our civic life.He makes that observation in what I thought it was the most important part of the article. Here is the passage in question from the Weekly Standard piece:"The role of culture is what Fr. Jenkins at Notre Dame and many other presidents of Catholic colleges don't quite get, and their lack of culture is what makes them sometimes seem so un-Catholic--though the charge befuddles them whenever it is made. As perhaps it ought. They know very well that they are Catholics: They go to Mass, and they pray, and their faith is real, and their theology is sophisticated, and what right has a bunch of other Catholics to run around accusing them of failing to be Catholic?"But, in fact, they live in a different world from most American Catholics. Opposition to abortion doesn't stand at the center of Catholic theology. It doesn't even stand at the center of Catholic faith. It does stand, however, at the center of Catholic culture in this country. Opposition to abortion is the signpost at the intersection of Catholicism and American public life. And those who--by inclination or politics--fail to grasp this fact will all eventually find themselves in the situation that Fr. Jenkins has now created for himself. Culturally out of touch, they rail that the antagonism must derive from politics. But it doesn't. It derives from the sense of the faithful that abortion is important. It derives from the feeling of many ordinary Catholics that the Church ought to stand for something in public life--and that something is opposition to abortion."He then goes on to develop a little more his thesis of a rupture between the Catholic university and the sense of the Catholic faithful. It's an interesting point and worth some thought. I'm not plugged into academic life anymore, and I don't know to what extent Bottum is, although I believe he has taught in the past. He seems to get speaking engagements at colleges here and there, and of course he is the editor of an important magazine that keeps him in conversation with Catholic academics.

Mollie, as I explained, she is giving a perspective from her very significant experience of how the honoring of Obama affets her as a young single pregnant Notre Dame student. Disagree with it if you want, but to call it not even legitimate as a perspective from which to view the honor/invitation, inapt, emotionally manipulative and the rest, well that's to push her aside rather than to empathize and repect her view. It's different from disagreeing. Think about the difference, and about whether you apply the same anti-personal filter to perspectives on issues important to you. Quite the opposite is true.

"Mark, I told you why I think this type of story is an inapt device through which to evaluate the invitation."Cathy, indeed you have. I gather then that you don't think answering her question directly would be helpful. You are certainly entitled to that opinion and to your refusal to answer her question because you don't think it would be helpful. I hope you would grant that I have a right to my opinion that direct answers to her question would be helpful, and would lead to fruitful discussion. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that, so far as I know, a direct answer to her question has not been given (by anyone). I commend you and Mollie for engaging the issue (I don't mean for that to sound as condescending as it might). Others have stayed away, unfortunately."Ive spent a lot of time studying rhetoric and moral argument. I also told you why, I think, rhetorically, the story isnt going to convince anyone who isnt convinced about the invitation." I think that criticism is unfair in that no story or argument is going to miraculously change people's hearts and minds instantly, on such an emotional issue. At least this one has generated lots of discussion, which can plant the seed for such a transformation, once the dust settles."But if youre going to resort to insults, then theres really no point in continuing to talk with you."Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about here. Who was insulted? What was the insult? In a post where I compliment the blog for being interesting, informative and unique, you accuse me of hurling insults? Ouch, that hurts. Do you know how hard it is for a conservative to compliment ANYTHING? I'm not due to give another one until 2012 (when I'll be complimenting Rush Limbaugh for being elected our new president).

Yo, Bob, I must say, I've been called on the carpet before, but never for something people think I MIGHT say. I had to chuckle at that. As it is, I have no opinion of Fr. Langan--I've never heard of him. I'm happy to hear that they still allow priests at Georgetown, though.

The answer to her question is, I don't know. I don't the young man. I don't know her. I could see a young man who saw Obama's own commitment to his family, his commitment to ensuring the care for unwed mothers, stepping up to the plate because of Obama's example. I don't know how the event would affect individual people. And more importantly, I don't know how it would effect people in Lacy's general situation who aren't Lacy. Different women may react differently. Different women in that situation, I know, do react differently. Their reactions are not worth less because they didn't write them down. Lacy Dodd graduated a decade ago. She's not graduating now. Neither is the father of her baby. But we need to speculate about him, and about her, and about the life of the baby, in order to answer the question, as she posed it. And we don't get to meet him, except through her. I am not in a position to speculate about them--nor do I want to. It's not my role. Some of what you see as "backlash," is the reluctance of people to evaluate the Obama decision in terms of a referendum on Lacy. Lacy is making people take a stand on a key aspect of her personal life "My boyfriend (and Obama) or me (and my daughter)?" But many people are profoundly uncomfortable making moral judgments about other people in this manner. There are real, live people involved! Anyone who knows anything about family law would say caveat scriptor! Suppose the backlash against the father provoked on the pro-life blogs means that he is discouraged from contacting his daughter. Suppose that reaction to the story hardens his heart--and his daughter suffers for it? How will this whole event make Lacy's daughter feel down the line==when she googles and finds the threads? I don't know who the father is, but my guess is a lot of people who went to school with Lacy do. Who wants to run the risk of fracturing already fractured relationships even more = especially when there's a child involved I certainly don't, and my guess is that many other Commonweal bloggers didn't earlier. Lacy Dodd reframed the Obama invitation in profoundly personal terms: does it support me or my boyfriend?. One doesn't have to be a liberal to realize a) the Obama invitation has to be analyzed on its own merits; and b) the only thing I can sensibly say about Lacy Dodd, whom I do not know, her child, whom I do not know, and the father of that child, whom I do not know, is that I will pray for them all, and I hope they will pray for me.

Cathy--Prayer is always good; I'll keep you in mine tonight, and ponder what you've written.

Jason - Who said "Lacy Dodd has no right to give her opinion?" That would be "marginalizing" her. But what I heard people (including me) saying was "I have read this essay, and I am not persuaded by Lacy Dodd's argument." Her argument -- not her description of what it felt like to be pregnant and a graduating senior at Notre Dame 10 years ago, or what it feels like to be looking back at that experience now, but her argument about how that should influence an analysis of the Obama invitation. She is obviously entitled to share her perspective, but I am not obliged to find it helpful.

"Who said Lacy Dodd has no right to give her opinion?"I have no idea. I've never seen that quote.

Precisely.