Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Why Barack Obama has to be seen as an enemy of the Catholic Church

We need to be alert: he is not without influence, even on this side of the pond

By on Friday, 25 February 2011

President Barack Obama waves when he came to the graduation ceremony at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana in 2009  (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

President Barack Obama waves when he came to the graduation ceremony at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana in 2009 (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Is Barack Obama the most anti-Catholic American president in living memory?

I don’t mean, of course, that he has openly attacked the Church (though it was noted that, at his inauguration as president, contrary to normal practice there was among the clergy invited to attend not one single Catholic, though he made a point of inviting the controversial — because openly and actively homosexual — Episcopalian (i.e. Anglican) bishop, Gene Robinson).

What I mean, though, is that across the whole spectrum of contemporary moral issues, he is passionately committed to a series of views which run directly contrary to those of the Church. All this has caused at least one Catholic bishop (there are probably others) to call him anti-Catholic.

As a Senator, he supported sex education, to be provided by Planned Parenthood, to children of five years old. He consistently voted for abortion, including partial birth abortion. He voted (twice) against Bills prohibiting public funding of abortions; he voted in favour of expanding embryonic stem cell research; he voted against notifying parents of minors who had undergone out-of-state abortions; he voted for a proposal to vote $100,000,000 for the funding of sex-education and contraceptives (including abortifacients) for teenagers; he opposed the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” on the Senate floor and in 2003 killed the bill in committee. This would have outlawed “live birth abortion,” where labor is induced and an infant is delivered prematurely and then allowed to die.

In the US, Catholics, of course, have noted all this, though their reaction to it has been inconsistent to say the least. In April 2009, the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame scandalously conferred on him an honorary degree. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis protested, and demanded that the invitation be withdrawn. His letter, to the president of Notre Dame, Fr John Jenkins (a Catholic priest, if you please) was a real stonker:

“Dear Father Jenkins:

“I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.

“I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.

“It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.

“I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.

“Sincerely yours,

“The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt
Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis”

Obama now has the institution of marriage in his sights. He last year issued a “proclamation” (which you can read on the White House website) on the occasion of the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride month”, indicating his intention to “give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act….”, and his conviction that “An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.”

The Defense of Marriage Act was, ironically, signed into law by another Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Under the law no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered to be a marriage in another state; it defines marriage clearly as a legal union between one man and one woman. It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities: Obama has no chance of getting it repealed. So he is now doing what he can to undermine it. This is where things get complicated for a limey who doesn’t quite understand the convolutions of the American legal system. According to the CNS,

“In a Feb. 23 statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said that although the administration has defended the 1996 law [i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act] in some federal courts, it will not continue to do so in cases pending in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike in the previous cases, said Holder, the 2nd Circuit ‘has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated’.”

This, apparently, is enough to impede the Act’s operation, enough, at least, seriously to alarm the American Catholic Bishops: here’s CNS again:

The U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel said the Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges ahead “represents an abdication” of its “constitutional obligation to ensure that laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”

“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman,” the office said in a statement issued Feb. 23 after President Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the federal law passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

That’s how things stand. How much effect in practice will Obama’s initiative actually have? Maybe someone who understands American jurisprudence better than I do can explain. At the very least, as the American bishops say, refusal to support the law is “a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.”

What next? The fact is that on this side of the pond, as well as in the US, President Obama needs watching. He may have been weakened in the Congress: but a President of the United States always has considerable power, to do evil as well as to do good. He is much more popular in many European countries than he is in the States: and he is not without his influence here. A man who is admired and respected as much as he has been, and in many places still is, can do harm through his words and deeds, even where he has no direct power.

I think he ought to be admired and respected very much less than he is.

  • Anonymous

    From the Catechism of Trent:

    “Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence

    The GRAVE Circumstances being Auricularis?

    Yet again you read a regulation without understanding it – and in what way pray tell was what I said in any way different to what the Holy Father said – recourse to “Capital Punishment” by the state is, as I said, the actuation of an intrinsic moral disorder – but in modern states where the circumstances are not grave [i.e. the individual is safely incarcerated and of no immediate direct risk to individual , community or nation] The self defence provisions DO NOT APPLY and it automatically becomes judicial murder – a latae sententiae excommunicable act. I’ve already stated that Abortion [ergo Euthanasia] are intrinsically evil – but the Church also decrees that Judicial Murder is intrinsically evil too – but recourse to a death penalty is not always judicial murder – therefore as there can be justifiable recourse there is that ‘diversity of opinion’ [i.e. what constitutes reasons for a 'Just war' or 'self defensive lethal response']

    The Roman Catechism makes it clear : It’s not what the state is permitted to do: It’s why the state is permitted to do it.

    i.e. The preservation and security of life : It is solely granted its authority [The 'use of the sword' as St Paul says in Rom 13] to this end and this end alone.

    From the CCC
    These “Grave” Circumstances:

    2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

    If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

    Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

    i.e. It is SOLELY to be used in self-defence.

    Now the Catechism of Trent ONLY recognizes the State’s authority to exact its lethal justice in its self-defensive and self-preservation role – i.e. There’s no change in teaching between the Roman catechism and the CCC – Teaching was always the same – it’s just we never bothered to live up to it – and always naturally presumed that the state’s right to kill was the right to punish with death – NOT the case – it had the right to defensively penalise with death.

    Returning to Aquinas : He reasons that by sinning (committing murder) a person departs from the order of reason and thereby falls away from human dignity. Hence, the judge may justifiably condemn this individual sinner to death, not out of hatred, but out of charity for the community.

    Now the human dignity issue has already been refuted – this is DOGMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    But the Catechism of Trent argues that the State ‘punishes’ not from hatred, but charity for the community – and is solely premitted that ‘natural, God-given discretionary power’ in its moral duty to defend and promote the life of the community – and the victim is penalised by being ‘an enemy of the state’ and must wilingly – as a restorative penance in charity for the community – submit willingly to their will….

    In other words: Death is not a valid form of punishment : But sacrifice of oneself for sake of the community expiates and adopts the form of penance for temporal punishment for all sin

    This might seem ridiculous: The state punishes : The criminal takes the punishment
    But that’s not the way the Church sees it :

    The State demands the life – not as recompense [if it did it would be gravely immoral] – but to remove a threat to life and security
    The Criminal is asked to sacrifice their life as an amendment and for the sake of the community – not to accept the taking of their life – but to instead offer their life as the penalising consequence of who they are.

    That’s the remit – that’s the sole source of Justice within this – the only ‘morality’ within the teaching.
    ANYTHING which veers from this becomes gravely sinful.

    The state which exacts retributive Justice and retributive,restorative punishment in EVERY other way when it implements the Law….MUST NOT DO SO when it comes to the taking of a prisoner’s life – it MUST ALWAYS be for reasons of self-defence of the State – i.e. even when it is called ‘Punishment’ it is expressly forbidden within the conditions of Trent itself to actually be punishment – rather it is a penalty of consequence – this might seem like wordplay – but it isn’t.

    So please Auricularis : Please state where ANY execution in the US [or anywhere else where there is a penitentiary facility] [including those of the underage and the mentally ill and the mentally incompetent [deep in the heart of Texas] ] where the safely incarcerated prisoner was executed under the remit of defence of the state? i.e. where they were actually in compliance with the grave circumstances which make it permissible within the catechism?

    As the Catechism suggests – such circumstances are practically non-existent.

    So please cease from this moral fudging , equivocation and relativising: It’s pornographic!!!!

  • Williamvlasic

    good article but to expect something from the US bishops done is a joke as the old addage the US bishops couldn’t agree on the color of an orange.

  • Perfida Limpin

    How dare you call yourself Christian while peddling all these half-truths! Shame! And who do you consider a friend of the Church – those Evangelicals & Mormons – who embrace us publicly given the Church’s shared agreement on some social issues while stabbing us in the back as child-abusing apostates & quasi-Christians when it’s time for them to boost their membership & tithe-collection? Wake up!

  • Steve_and_theresa

    I agree on the catholic In Name Only. They are what i call “cultural Catholics” They go to church at Christmas and Easter to get the warm, fuzzy, wow feeling of great ceremony.

  • Steve_and_theresa

    Why can’t he be impeached?

  • Anonymous

    [Recently discovered this item on the web.]

    Roosevelt Vs. Obama

    What did President Teddy Roosevelt say?
    “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
    What does Barack Hussein Obama say?
    “Jigaboo for Jihad and not for Jesus!”
    Also “Fight for Allah and not for America!”
    Want facts re our lawless Hypocrite-in-Chief?
    Just Google “Obama Fulfilling the Bible” !

  • Anonymous

    Roosevelt Vs. Obama

    What did President Teddy Roosevelt say?
    “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
    What does Barack Hussein Obama say?
    “Jigaboo for Jihad and not for Jesus!”
    Also “Fight for Allah and not for America!”
    Want facts re our lawless Hypocrite-in-Chief?
    Just Google “Obama Fulfilling the Bible” !

  • Petirkey

    Oh, how sad to see the news like Anti Christ, whoever may be. Let us not be over preoccupied with the persons acts and his operation involved in to destroy the life. Surely he, the person knows well by doing that he is fighting against God Himself, thus may God defend Himself and His Church. Now you and me just ask God, the Lord of Life and death, the God of mercy and forgiveness, that He may forgive the person and make him a great herald of Catholic faith and truth, as He did with St. Paul. Thanks

  • Anonymous

    “In April 2009, the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame scandalously conferred on him an honorary degree.”

    It’s fashionable to pillory Obama as the incarnation of all evil – which is a good reason not to join in the Gadarene rush to judgement. Tony Blair would make a much better hate-figure, if there must be one – Obama does at least not claim to be Catholic. And Obama wants to end the war in Iraq that TB got this country into. As for abortion – TB’s record is hardly wonderful there. If there can be a Two-Minute Hate for the Antichrist in the Oval Office, maybe there should be longer for Tony Bliar

    ““Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman”

    Α statement not supported by the Old Testament. Abraham was not monogamous, nor were the kings: Solomon had 700 wives, & 300 concubines. David had several wives – something not held against him in the Bible. Far from it.

    It will be time for the Church to throw stones at Obama, once its own glass house is less like a sewer. Until then, it has not a leg to stand on.

  • LeFloch

    Perhaps you would have a better opinion of the General if you paid more attention to the nature of the regimes which came before and after his rule? He saved Spain from Communism, from Reds who murdered priests, raped nuns and burnt churches. Today’s Spain is in the hands of ‘soft’ Reds who champion abortion, pornography and homosexual marriage. I live in the same world you do, and it is controlled by our enemies. General Franco’s victory in the Spanish Civil War was one of the last times our enemies suffered a set-back. That is why he is hated by leftist academics, politicians and journalists…………. and those who allow such people to do their thinking for them.

  • LeFloch

    Impressive argument Dr Oddie! Maybe I’ll reconsider the matter?

  • Mfox33

    Well finally someone dosnt like the church of the child molestors

  • Anonymous

    Numbers of parteners is not what anybody is discussing (In any case each time those kings married it was a separate union between one man and one woman.) The point in hand is that marriage has never been regarded as acceptable between two people of the same gender but has, in fact, been condemed as one of the gravest sins possible.

    As for Blair his policies in parliament with regard to abortion (or anything else for that matter) came before his conversion to Catholicism and if he is rejected from the church on the basis of what he has done then how can the church continue to preach forgiveness given that he has no power to pass laws on anything anymore.

  • Anonymous

    Great article, Oddie.

    Today, I read Toby Harnden in The Telegraph arguing that republicans should focus on spending, health care and unemployment and forget about religious matters to win 2012 elections.

    It comes again, politicians should leave moral aside to accomplish their goals. In the Middle East, this results in dictators, in the society, we have death of unborns and of families.

    Pedro Erik

  • HammerDoc

    Obama spoke at Notre Dame almost 2 years ago. That’s ok, it’s not like Notre Dame is a Catholic university–it hasn’t been for many years now–no matter WHAT it calls itself or how many chapels, statues and grottoes are still on campus. That just makes it a university where Catholicism can be practiced. (The ridiculing by their professors of students who do so notwithstanding.)

    What the university believes, teaches, and the teachings of The Church it ridicules, separate it from the “Universal” Church Christ founded almost 2000 years ago.

  • Patt

    You are right, bunch of snobs that think they are superior to religion. They believe in themselves, but I doubt God is on their priority list.

  • The_Monk

    Your argument sidesteps the choice one can make of one separating one’s self voluntarily from the love of God. The reality is that hell is real, and the unrepentant guilty are consigned there. We do not all skip off to heaven, holding hands while singing hymns. Abortion is undeniably the slaughter of a purely innocent person, while capital punishment is meted out by the state to someone who has (usually) been duly convicted of a heinous crime. Huge difference – there is no moral equivalence. Of course, the most notable exception is the death of Our Lord, Himself, and subsequently the many martyrs we hold in reverence. And so we certainly do not endorse capital punishment as preferential to extended incarceration. But your argument has never been, nor is it now, the official position of the Church.

  • Patt

    By the way, I work with several Catholics. The four I am thinking of have Hispanic roots, and know nothing about the Faith. Absolutely nothing about the church or anything political. Flowing with the wind, not using a brain and they all voted for Obama. They are the “catholic in name only” types.

  • Netto12

    He is Satan reincarnation of th Evil one.
    Destroy of life nowithstanding going the flow of nature.

  • Anonymous

    Excuse me – the official teaching of the Church – SINCE TRENT – is the only valid justifiable reason for execution is in the state’s role of self-defence.

    The equivocation of ‘no moral equivalence’ is scandalously shameful – abortion is pure absolute evil :judicial murder is evil [if not potentially more grave in certain circumstances in that it can be a collective conspiratorial crime and promotign a heresy on the dignity of the human person]

    We are not at home to relativism ; Murder is murder – and the murder of any human being – be they the most evil genocidal maniac or the most innocent child in the womb – is a crime calling to Heaven for justice…

    To make any attempt to justify it or dismiss it, or permit the advocates to continue to promote it solely because ‘ it isn’t as bad as abortion’ – is grossly immoral!!

    I repeat: One CANNOT be pro-Life and pro-Capital Punishment.

    End of story.

  • LeFloch

    So much for those who argue that Hispanic immigration will revitalise the Church!

  • Cbenneriii

    I am one who doesn’t blame Obama for much of anything anti catholic. He and most of the world leaders are nothing but puppets for the world banking institutions. The fault –blame for the troubles can be shoulders of Catholics who don’t pray the rosary (rembember the battle at Leponto. And we can’t forget satan. Pope Leo XIII tried to warn us. I am a 72 year revert that came back to the church in 1977. I was confused at what I found in my church. After searching for the Truth, and finding it, the only person to blame for the confusion was the person I saw in the mirror everyday. “Did I Love God with my whole heart and soul, and my neighbor as my self? The answer was a resonding No!
    Every sin I committed against my God had a negative effect on society and my immediate family. “But for the Grace of God, there go I.” Deo Gracea (sp).

  • Wanda

    We, as Catholics, may believe what we do, and live in accordance with these beliefs. But that others behave differently is not to say they are against us. Very good people do what they think is good. That we see matters differently does not make them our enemy. This is not a fair comment on Obama. He is acting well, by his lights. This is all any man can do. It is for us to consider why this is a problem, and then to discuss our point of view with love and quiet persuasion, following the Pope’s lead. Please, do not tell me that Obama is my enemy. I cannot agree.

  • Wanda

    do not be so silly

  • Wanda

    I do not believe that Jesus hates people just because of their sexuality. I do not believe that your inability to tolerate difference makes you at one with the love and charity that is what Jesus promised us would heal the world. Stop hating, start loving.

  • Wanda

    Love is what you need, not hate. Read what Jesus said to us – there is nothing about supporting fascist monsters.

  • Kennyinliverpool


  • Kennyinliverpool

    Hating gay people is not even Church teaching… it has been repeatedly said that gay people should be treated with dignity and that it is a sin to discriminate against them – many people who post here really hate the gays… and they then wonder why people do not enter the priesthood (a gay profession) or go to church

  • Kennyinliverpool

    I do not understand why the sexual practices of non-Catholics should concern people. The Catholic Church does not seek to legislate the sexual practices of its non-members…? If people were justified by merely being nice married straight people then the basis of Catholicism may need to be looked at?

  • Ratbag

    I knew Obama was a chancer long before he was elected.There was enough information to enlighten Roman Catholic voters about his track record before they cast their vote.

    It did not bode well when Obama mucked up the Presidential Oath of Office. What did he swear it on? A dictionary disguised as a Bible? He might as well have done for all the trouble he has caused. He has all the charisma of a wide-boy!

    He’s nowhere to be seen as North Africa and the Arab Peninsula revolts and riots. Is Obama the Great (NOT!) busy playing ‘chopsticks’ on the Whitehouse piano whilst Libya etc. burns and people are killed?

  • Ratbag

    Since when as the priesthood been regarded as ‘a gay profession’ ????? What are you implying here?
    A generalisation?

    If it is a generalisation, kennyinliverpool, then you have cast a slur on the mostly hetrosexual men who are in the priesthood!

  • Ratbag

    It makes my blood boil that the contraceptive pill and condoms are given away free on the NHS whilst life saving drugs are decided and distributed depending on one’s dog-gone postcode and subject to costs and charities raising funds etc.

    No chance of these contraceptives and laughingly named ‘sexual health’ clinics falling victim to the cuts, eh?

    Not an icecube in hell’s chance!

  • Ratbag

    His Majesty King Bauduin of Belgium (God rest him) had something that many world leaders lack – integrity and guts.

  • Megan

    UK, that stands for the United Kingdom, correct? Meaning NOT the United States? Heehee, excuse me while I ignore the opinions about the President, my school, and the American Church from people who know nothing about which they speak.

  • Megan

    Have you ever stepped foot on the campus of Notre Dame? You don’t know our school or any of us, so intentionally offending me and 10,000 other students to score cheap political points says a lot about you as a “Christian” and none of it is good. I think our Lord would say it best to you: Get behind me Satan. You are not a Christian. You use the Church for political purposes, to drive an extremist right wing agenda that hates the poor, hates anyone who doesn’t look like you, and worships greed and profit. CINO does mean Catholic in Name Only, and it applies quite well to your type.

  • Megan

    You are an imbecile. You have never been on our campus, and you judge us like this? It is obvious that you are an uneducated fool who hates anyone who has gone to college because you never finished elementary school (hence your current joblessness and love for the Tea Party). Keep using the Church for political purposes. Jesus will have His say and you aren’t going to like what He has to say. Hell is hot. Get used to the idea.

  • Megan

    Well, I do know I am superior to you.

  • Jo

    THANK YOU for not posting a whole bunch of hate like most of the other comments!

  • Patt

    I am sure you are superior to me—so what?

  • ProcrastINation

    As far as I know, those protestors who were halled off at Notre Dame are still awaiting trial. Letters to Fr. Jenkins and Notre Dame University to drop charges have been met with silence. This is another example of the irrational thought process in those “liberal” Catholics who have mixed leftist socialist teaching with the Catholic teaching; i.e., Jesus’s words. Mary, our Mother, put the evil snake under your feet!

  • Megan

    I find it ironic that you claim to be a follower of Christ but you have so much hatred built up in you. Hatred for people you don’t even know anything of. You use the Church for political ends, Christ will deal with you, thankfully.

  • Tonyjohn

    He is an evil man, a murderer and a disgrace to human society

  • Sinner

    Why would praying for him be silly?

  • Eric Conway

    What an extraordinary un-Christian reply. I now see exactly what is meant by Notre Dames anti-Catholicism . It would appear that Notre Dame is moulding unthinking Obamaphile clones !.

  • The_Monk

    Nonsense. The Catechism, #2267, is the official stance on the death penalty. #’s 2270 thru 2272 proscribe abortion. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is.

  • Recordswagner

    Yes, I agree that President O’Bama is an enemy of the Catholic faith.

    Joseph John Wagner

  • Anonymous

    NO : Not nonsense at all : You simply refuse to read what #227 says:

    2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

    So a self-defensive immediate direct critical ‘death penalty’ is permissible e.g. shooting a suicide bomber ; but Capital Punishment? i.e. executing an incarcerated criminal who is no immediate direct threat – IS NOT PERMISSIBLE – it is not the only possible way of effectively defending against an unjust aggressor – there is no unjust aggressor to be defended from !!! i.e. Execution of an incarcerated prisoner is judicial murder – a latae sententiae excommunicable offence!!!

    If you declare that #2267 is official Catholic teaching? Then perhaps you should read it before you talk about it.

    ..and incidentally when it comes to the Church, yes I am entitled to my opinion – e.g. whether I prefer certain hymns or prayers or the homilies of certain priests or my favourite smell of incense – but I am NOT entitled to my own beliefs which contravene magisterial teaching.

    It’s about time US Catholics who declared themselves pro-Life but promote/advocate Capital Punishment and vote for such candidates [including voting for those candidates who support the judicial murder inherent within illegal unjust wars] gave themselves a long look in the mirror and booked themselves a place in the confessional….

  • Anonymous

    Oh – and in response to your earlier comment : The Dogma of the Church on impossibility of sin annihilating human dignity has nothing to do with the modernist heterodoxy of Universalism.

    If you judge your neighbour as ‘bestial’ or ‘devoid of humanity’; I think you’d better re-read the sermon on the mount regarding the consequences.

  • Megan

    So typical of the Hitler-like tendencies of the fascist right wing, whether it be in America or, wherever. Someone you agree with viciously attacks people and those people actually DEFEND themselves and then those people are bad. If you could actually see beyond the partisan point of your nose, you would see I am defending my school not any politician. I have little need for your silly politics and I couldn’t care less who holds the meaningless office of President or any other. What I detest is you people, and its always those with fascist tendencies, using the Church for petty political purposes. I am un-Christian? I suggest you read that Bible you probably claim to follow every once in a while. In the meantime, I have little more use for the bloviations of bigots on the message board of a site that comes from the world’s most anti-Christian nation.

  • Eric Conway

    Megan, Notre Dame & Obama would be proud of you. Your liberal fundamentalist bigotry is right up there with the best of them. As an Irish Catholic ( & proud of it ), I take exception to your last sentence. The Catholics of Scotland, England & Wales gave the Pope a brilliant welcome on his visit in September. Wonder would he be as welcome as Obama in Notre Dame . Somehow I doubt it !.