The Barbershop has re-located

The proprietor has moved the shop to ChicagoNow, a Chicago Tribune site that showcases some of the best bloggers in the Chicago area. You can logo on to the Barbershop home page here. The ChicagoNow home page is here.

You'll still be able to post comments with the same ease as in this location. The proprietor also will keep this web site alive if you wish to review old posts.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Glendon declines commencement honor from Notre Dame

Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard University professor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican declines to accept the school's highest honor because it also is honoring the anti-life President Barack Obama.

Details are here.

9 comments:

Amusing Bunni said...

Hi Dennis!

I really enjoy your pieces in the Trib! Especially today's edition, you should post a link and copy of it on here!

You are SO RIGHT about the USA being the only country that shoots itself in the foot with their policy of coddling combatents!
We are the laughing stock of the world.

And, I laughed, but it is sad and true that with our current teleprompter in chief, they will be fetted and pampered even more. Maybe BHO will open up the Lincoln Bedroom for them and invite them to his weekly cocktail parties for the clueless elite!

Keep up the great writing...hard hitting truths, but with humor to keep us smiling!

PS: this is from a former St. Scholastica beauty you were daydreaming about :-) Bunni

Anonymous said...

Gee I wonder why JFK was the last Catholic president--the "anti-life" Obama stand is also the current law in the U.S.
Separation of Church and State and all that stuff doesnt mean much anymore to Glendon or other Catholics.

Dennis Newport said...

This insistence on lock-step from hierarchy and Catholics who like spoon-feeding is what is driving people away; it's what the pedophile scandal was all about. Notre Dame is a private institution, and the invitation to Obama coincides with their ideals, even if these ideals hew towards freedom of thought within revelation.

Anonymous said...

If the "Catholics" of our country, think that our President's stand on abortion disqualifies him from speaking at the "Catholic" school that is Notre Dame (I don't see Catholicism, or even religious study, as a required course of study), then they need to do two things:

First, get in touch with your fellow Catholics. Most don't feel as you do.

Second, if only the lock-step beliefs are allowed, which is fine with me, then review your list of past speakers and revoke the honorary degrees of all those who supported capital punishment. This is just as repugnant and officially opposed as abortion.

Of course, they won't do either because they don't want to know they are in the minority, and the right wingnuts that they are favor the taking of human life by the state.

Anonymous said...

Maybe we shouldn't invite the Pope to the United States---just think of the things he promotes that Americans are against.

Hope Obama doesn't go. Notre Dame doesn't deserve him.

Mike V. said...

In response to Dennis Newport and some other above anonymous posters:

I am a conservative Catholic; I don't believe that Barrack Hussein Obama should be invited to speak at Notre Dame, so please don't try to represent my Catholic views or pretend that you know what most Catholics think. Abortion—the taking of innocent life—should not be permitted and certainly should not taxpayer funded. Notice that I said innocent life. I do not believe that the execution of convicted murderers can be rationalized as "the same as abortion." And yes (just in case you wonder), I would prefer that they not be killed, but locked away for life
The right to make choices is a gift from God, and like any of those gifts, they can be abused. Choosing whether to have sex, choosing a method of contraception and choosing whether to obey or break laws are just a few of the many choices we have. But I do not believe that our right to choose extends to taking the life of an innocent human being.

Sticking up for those who are most defenseless is one of the great liberal premises. Yet, that seemed to be overwhelmed in the case of abortion by another objective: To not feel bad. Liberals constantly demand that someone—usually the government—step in to take away the sting of a bad decision. The bailouts are one example of the belief that whatever makes us feel good should be allowed, if not encouraged.

Sadly, this defective thinking isn’t unique to the left. Never having any clear lines to delineate right from wrong, the human mind can justify any behavior. This perspective makes it easier to understand why there is no room for God in the current definition of government. God does provide a set of guidelines to live by. Those guidelines are always simple, but they are not always easy. The Constitution is another such guideline. Both have provided generations of life, liberty and happiness. But we have thoroughly trashed that document as well, for the same “feel good” reasons.

Until we recognize the value of the human life, how are we capable of recognizing and dealing with other pressing problems? Until we see that life is a gift to be cherished and chosen in all things, how can we progress? Until we recognize the existence and nature of a problem, how can we solve it?

Take the current economic malaise. Was the cause "eight years of George Bush?" Or is it, deeper? Who encouraged, even demanded, that the banks lend recklessly? Why did our government sponsored mortgage enterprises, and why did Freddie and Fannie agreed to buy any and every mortgage to come their way? Did Barney Frank, House Banking Committee chairman, say safety and soundness at Freddie and Fannie were not an issue? Why does he still have a job? Are we asking him to fix our problem? Did George Bush begin the failure when he chose to "save the free market by abandoning free market principals." Banks are lent money by the government to insure solvency but they are not allowed to give it back. What was the purpose of the loan in the first place? Is government the solution or the problem? Confusion, it knows no bounds, politically, socially, ethically or economically.
To invite the man that sponsors a policy that borders on infanticide to speak to an institution that represents Catholic education is not an attempt at diversity or enlightenment. It is an attempt by the president to show that even Catholics support his position. And it is an attempt by the administration of the school to gain the national spotlight. The motives of both are dubious at best.

God’s word is plain, clear, there is no confusion. Until we recognize Him, until we recognize His role in our life, in our country, the confusion and the misery will only continue.

Anonymous said...

Mike V...

I don't believe that you speak for a majority of Catholics today... not even close. However your beliefs comport with the rules of the Catholic church, so I applaud your dedication and consistency...

Right up to the point you say "I do not believe that the execution of convicted murderers can be rationalized as 'the same as abortion.'" Nobody ahead of you ever said that. (I'm sure you are referring to my post two above yours.) I merely suggested that the outrage be consistent. Capital punishment is against the teachings of the Catholic church, so let's go back to all of the past commencement speakers who have supported that and revoke their degrees. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.

Hypocrisy has always been a mainstay of the anti-abortion crowd. Sure, there are some who say no abortion, any time, any place, for any reason. I respect that view. The view I don't respect, which is the prevalent view, is no abortion except... rape, incest, etc. If you're argument against abortion is that it is murder, is it any less of a murder if the unborn is the result of a rape? No, it is not, but virtually every leader in the anti-abortion movement allows for those exceptions. They are hypocrites, as are those who now oppose Obama but said nothing about GW Bush, the man who argued against the Supreme Court ruling that barred executing mentally incapacitated individuals, coming to town in 2001.

And, I'll say it again... Notre dame is not a Catholic school. Just because it is run by a Catholic order does not make it so. When it requires its students to study Catholicism, and maybe even be Catholic, then it will be a Catholic school. Until then, act like the private, very exclusive, school that you are. My Catholic son, an A-student in high school, could not go there because he is not an athlete and he has no powerful sponsor. When the first test of admission is being Catholic, then ND will be a Catholic school.

But that would ruin the athletics program and the alumni would quit donating.

Anonymous said...

Why do U.S. Presidents feel the need to speak at Notre Dame? Domers like to think that Notre Dame is as elite as Harvard, Duke, and Stanford.

In the grand scheme of things, an Illinois resident will receive a better education at U of I for far less money.

As for abortion, there are far more issues that are of importance to me, like taxes, goverment spending, and Obama wanting us to drive little econobox cars, rather than big cars with throaty V-8 engines.

Dennis Byrne... said...

Response to the anonymous poster two above:

The object my writing is to state my opinion, my position. I am a Catholic. I go to church every Sunday. I try to carry my faith with me every where I go. Some positions with more conviction than others.

If you see hypocrisy in allowing abortion to save a mother's life or in the case of incest, you see it. If I were to say that there is no case where abortion was tolerable you would call me an extremist and dismiss my position.

I don't believe that abortion should be engaged in. I don't want my government promoting it. And I certainly don't want to pay for it. I don't want my religion placing its stamp on the infanticide administration of Barrack Hussein Obama. It really is that simple.

If the government can decide when it is acceptable to take a life as life enters the world, what is to prevent it from deciding when it should take life on the way out. If the government-run health care system that President Obama wants is implemented, government might decide that the stents that you need in your heart are too expensive or that you have led the kind of life that makes you undeserving of stents. You can't say that is out of the realm of posibility. Do you believe that abortion should be allowed and encouraged by government? Why?


Mike V.