The Catholic Cricket

A lot of the Catholic blogs I read are up in arms (figuratively, obviously) over Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to be the commencement speaker at this years graduation ceremony.  While I understand and share their dislike of this situation, I have a slightly different perspective I’ve not seen brought up anywhere.

It is no surprise that Dame issued the invitation.  The administration there has wandered all over the place with regards to the Catholic faith, doing some good things but also doing some incredibly stupid things, things that are out of alignment with Catholic values (at least, from my perspective).

No, it was no surprise at all.  They’ve issued such invitations to Presidents regularly (from what I recall and have read).  Not all in the recent past have accepted.  Carter did, Reagan did, Bush did, Clinton didn’t, Bush did.

What I question is why the President accepted. 

The charitable side of me says that President Obama was truly honored to be asked to speak at the ceremony, and delightedly accepted such an honor.  The cynical side of me, the side that is currently winning in my evaluation of the reasons, laughs at this idea.  My inner cynic thinks that it is another attempt to pander to Catholics.  To me, it is an attempt to placate his Catholic supporters, to say “I care about my Catholic friends” while doing so much that is so completely contrary to Catholic teaching.

I don’t think he expected the response he got…at least, not the amount.  But it’s all directed at Notre Dame, and not Obama.  He is not the target of the anger.  If it keeps up as is, directed almost entirely at Notre Dame, liberals will be able to paint this as just a bunch of ultraconservative kooks who are out of touch with America.  Their accomplices in the press will help push this concept.  And because the driving force is Obama’s stance on life issues, they’ll be able to use this to harm the pro-life movement.

Instead of simply railing at Notre Dame, this needs to be used to drive home why Obama is bad for America.  Yes, he shouldn’t be speaking at a Catholic commencement ceremony, he shouldn’t be receiving an honorary law degree from the premier US Catholic university.  These events are a travesty.  But they’re a travesty because of Obama’s stance and actions with regards to abortion and ESCR. 

He has written a death sentence for millions of innocent babies.  He’s made you and me pay for those deaths.  He’s done it in the name of scientific advancement and personal freedom and privacy, as if any of those justify killing another human being.  And now he’s trying to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of many Catholics by making them feel good because he paid attention to a Catholic university.

The sad thing is…it’ll work.  After all, a school as prestigious as Notre Dame wouldn’t give an honorary degree to someone unless they really deserved it, would they?

There’s all this hoopla surrounding the faux Congressional outrage (and media-generated public outrage).  While I agree in essence with my brother’s take on it, I have a slightly different response.

I’m outraged.

I’m not outraged that public money was used to pay the $165 million in bonuses.  Those were contractually-required bonuses, from what I understand.  No, I’m outraged that public money was given to AIG in the first place.  I’m outraged that $170 Billion of taxpayer money was given to AIG with no strings attached, no oversight, no direction on how it was to be used, and seemingly no planning.

I’m further outraged that some Congressional Democrats are now calling for a retroactive tax on those bonuses (and bonuses paid out to people working at other companies that took bailout money).  Excuse me?  Who do you think you are, to change the rules in place after the event has taken place, and penalizing people for something that was fine at the time of the action?  The action is complete, the transaction finalized, the taxes taken out and paid (at current rates), the bonuses delivered.  If you want to change the rules now, then the new rules apply from here on out.

I’m trying to find a good analogy, but I just can’t.  Changing a golfer’s handicap after the round and declaring the loser a winner?  Not quite.

Ahh…I think I have it.  You go out to a restaurant for a meal.  You order the meal, eat the meal, pay for the meal, and go home.  Two weeks later you get a bill from the restaurant saying that they had raised prices on their entrees and you owed them another $20 for that meal from two weeks ago.

That’s still not quite right.  Let’s try another.

Robin Hood robs from the townsfolk and gives to the nobility, to help them out of a bind they got themselves into through bad decisions (shouldn’t have sunk all that money into new expensive villages where the villagers couldn’t afford to stay there).  The nobility then pay some townsfolk some extra money for being loyal workers.  Robin Hood gets pissed, gets a list of those so paid, and steals the money away from them again, even though he had originally required the nobility to give those townsfolk that extra money.

Man, Robin Hood is a jerk.

Well, that’s about the best I can do.  Maybe someone else out there can come up with a better analogy.