Elizabeth Lev, daughter of Mary Ann Glendon has responded to this written by Kaitlyn Riely at Politics Daily. Riely,speaking of Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, says:
“But Glendon has been trained in diplomacy. Shouldn’t being in the same place and engaging someone of an opposing view be right up her alley? Wouldn’t the better decision be to use her platform — or at least her proximity — to persuade Obama to change his views? Her diplomatic style seems to be less suited for U.S.-Vatican relations and more for U.S.-Cuba relations.”
Reponse by Elizabeth Lev, Mary Ann Glendon’s daughter:
“The Laetare Medal is the highest honor conferred on Catholics in the United States. For a Catholic, it has greater prestige than a Nobel Prize for a scientist or an Academy Award for an actor, as the award is given for career-long achievement, for “staying the course” in the words of St. Paul. It doesn’t just showcase a single discovery or film role.
To renounce it, therefore, is not the lightest of matters. Professor Glendon has spent a month thinking, consulting, and given her deep faith, praying about this decision. (This, for those of you who don’t know, means asking God to help one put aside one’s own personal concerns and act in the way that will produce the greatest good). (Kaitlyn) Riely’s dismissive “thanks, no thanks” rendering of her decision, while pithy, is reductive.
Professor Glendon was to have been honored for not only for her scholarship, but for her second career, her pro-bono work — ranging from the civil rights movement of the 1960s to the great civil rights issues of the present day — namely, the defense of human life from conception to natural death. Her concerns range from the aging and dying population to the unborn to the well-being and dignity of every life, regardless of race, religion, or economic status. Her outstanding work in this field has earned her the respect of the most brilliant minds of the international community, regardless of whether they agree with her position. So again, to see her merely as “strongly anti-abortion” instead of as a tireless defender of the dignity of life, is to reveal not only a lack of understanding of the subject’s work, but also the writer’s real interest in this question.
Furthermore, during his first 100 days in office, President Obama has worked tirelessly to undermine Professor Glendon’s lifetime of work; he is funding abortion out of the bailout package and planning to suppress the protection of conscience for health care workers.
Your notion that her “training in diplomacy” might somehow ease this situation does not take into account that she has a five-minute acceptance speech and he will have a lengthy commencement speech. There is no “engaging” here. Diplomacy generally teaches that if you have a rapier and your opponent has a missile launcher, try not to engage.
That Professor Glendon “did not like that Notre Dame was claiming her speech would serve to balance the event” is again facile and simplistic. What is there to like in being the deflector screen for inviting a profoundly divisive figure to give the commencement speech? What is likeable about a Catholic University named for the most important woman in Christianity exploiting a woman who has already dedicated her life to protecting the Church’s teaching by turning her into a warm-up act for a grotesque twist on a reality show?
Finally, after 50 Catholic bishops condemned the university for its direct defiance in honoring a man in open conflict with the Church’s teaching, it is right that Professor Glendon let her silence speak louder than her five-minute allotment of words would have.Readers might be wondering how I know all this. Well, for one I am her daughter, but more to the point, I read her letter with the careful consideration it deserves.”
Elizabeth Lev is an art historian and writer based in Rome, where all of her three children were born… more
Michelle Malkin sums up Obama’s first 100
One of the most outspoken abortion opponents in Congress labeled President Obama the “abortion president” on Friday in response to news that Obama intended to sign an executive order Monday lifting restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., accused Obama of launching two attacks on pro-life measures. In addition to lifting President Bush’s stem cell restrictions, Obama intends to lift regulations from the Bush administration that allow health care providers and institutions to refuse to participate in abortions on grounds of conscience.
“Why does the president persist in the dehumanizing of nascent human life when better alternatives exist? Human embryo-destroying stem cell research is not only unethical, unworkable and unreliable- it is now, demonstrably unnecessary,” Smith said.Smith labeled Obama’s stem cell policy an expansion of “human embryo experimentation.”
“Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible.”
Although Charles Krauthammer is wrong on where to draw the line in stem cell research, I think you will find his stance against President Obama’s stance a must read. Krauthammer is “not religious” and so to his mind sees no definitive guideline as to when person-hood is bestowed. To my mind the science of it tells the tale. Peering into the beginning moments of life with powerful cameras records the change from ova and sperm entities to new being with all the where-with-all to command the hormones and functions of the mother’s body to make possible its continuance and growth. It has not only presence but power to command.
The Truth of the matter, and our relationship to the Creator from the instant of our becoming a unique individual at the conjoining of ovum and sperm, is still hidden from Krauthammer. It does help to have the Truth that is revealed by the Creator through the Scriptures, the Church and the Tradition of both Church and Man (Natural Law.) I leave this as another issue for another day. Krauthammer does believe in Evil. He opposes Obama’s replacing Bush’s line with “no line at all.”
This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of “science” and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom. [My emphasis]
Though Krauthammer does not know when to confer person-hood, he says:
“I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research — a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.
Krauthammer judges Obama as morally arrogant in the extreme, dismissing “his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics.” Or so Obama expects us to believe.
Krauthammer says of President George W. Bush:
“Bush’s nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.”
I am reminded of the recent movie, I Am Legion, a futuristic nightmare with basis in possibility if not history for a scenario of science run amok. Krauthammer concludes his dismembering of Obama’s so called reasoned logic:
Dr. James Thomson, the pioneer of embryonic stem cells, said “if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” Obama clearly has not.
“Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible.”
Show America what “CHOICE” really means.
Obama silencing the voice of conscience? Not!
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” Matt 22L 21, Mark 12: 17, Luke 20: 25
When something is repeated in the Gospel as this is by three Evangelists, it means this is supremely important. Of course, when you don’t like what the Gospel says, you simply leave the Church or come up with a version of church that makes you the Magisterium. In other words, you become the Voice of the Holy Spirit. Convenience, but not conscience!
Repealing this rule is, of course, one more issue of conscience vs. having none.
Here’s the NY Times report:
The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Its supporters included the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader in the House, said, “This is the third action taken by Washington Democrats in the past 38 days to weaken American rules that are meant to safeguard the sanctity of human life.”
Archbishop Charles Chaput put it this way in his address: Rendering unto Caesar: The Catholic political vocation
“The “separation of Church and state” does not mean – and it can never mean – separating our Catholic faith from our public witness, our political choices and our political actions. That kind of separation would require Christians to deny who we are; to repudiate Jesus when he commands us to be “leaven in the world” and to “make disciples of all nations.” That kind of radical separation steals the moral content of a society. It’s the equivalent of telling a married man that he can’t act married in public. Of course, he can certainly do that, but he won’t stay married for long.”
A number to keep at hand since it does make a difference!
Congressional switchboard: 202-224-3121
A recent Gallup Poll showed that the Mexico City Policy repealed by executive fiat by President Obama is unpopular with approximately 65% of American taxpayers who will be footing the bill for abortions in the third world and made accomplices in the killing of unborn infants worldwide.
You have a choice and the freedom to speak up on behalf of the defenseless whom government is meant to protect.
Tell your senators and congressmen:
USA Today published the latest Gallup Poll that showed Obama got it wrong. This man of the people doesn’t yet know the People. However, to be fair, I think when he signed the executive order to restore U.S. funding to organizations that perform and promote abortion in developing nations by repealing the Mexico City Policy he knew this act was out of step with the American will. Obama, while he did some things with great fanfare, this sneak-signing was something he chose to do behind closed doors, out of the limelight and at such a time that it was thought in media circles that people wouldn’t notice. Well, he got that wrong too and people are noticing his propensity for rule by fiat and getting it wrong.
The Gallup Poll showed that only 35% of the polled 1027 people agreed with President Obama’s action. Hadly, a popular action of necessity! US taxpayer dollars will promote and procure abortions in the name of America. Thank you President Obama!
The secular world looks upon Jesus, deemed irrelevant, and says, “Crucify Him!”
President Barak Obama looks upon the Church and it’s voiced opposition to the gospel of Death and says, “I won!” In other words, “Crucify Him!”
Nancy Pelosi looks upon the teachings of the Church (her Church?) and it’s proclamation of the Gospel of Life. Then, with political and pragmatic correctness, hammer and nails in hand, pronounces, in effec,t that Life costs too much. So,we hear again, “Crucify Him!”
Here’s the vision as it was related to me. You and I squeak pass the Pearly Gates. People of all ages overwhelm even our enhanced understanding of the generations descended from Adam and Eve. We can’t wait to embrace them. Instantly, we know their stories. These are those who lived Salvation history. “What was it like?”, we ask over and again? These, after all, are those who walked dry shod through the walls of water escaping Pharaoh’s chariots. Here, too, are the masses who had pressed upon the Christ. They’d witnessed the manner and miracles of Jesus. Some has eaten the bread and fish He’d multiplied. Others admitted that they had shouted, “Crucify Him.” Others had stood along the way as He pushed on to Calvary. The martyrs from all past centuries were among the most joyful. They now rejoiced that their blood shed for Christ seeded the proceeding eons to bear fruit in such as we. For all our eagerness to express our gratitude to them and give glory to God, they pressed the more upon us for their need to know our stories. “Tell us,” they asked, “how black did the times become when men who pretend to knowledge denied life in the womb. How dark were the days in which the hearts of mothers died, choosing to bring forth corpses instead of living children. You, who lived with blindness and deafness, how did you survive? Like Peter, was it repentance that re-ignited your flame? How did you find courage walking the Valley of the Shadow of Death? How bright was the Light that brought you home?”