The brute dishonesty and ignorance with which the Los Angeles Times opines on issues related to the Catholic Church never ceases to astound. The latest shameful entry is an error-ridden and misleading editorial (Wed. 4/1/09) on the Obama-Notre Dame scandal. This follows an equally fallacious opinion piece from Tim Rutten just a few days ago.

The article begins by slamming those who oppose Obama's appearance at Notre Dame as "seem[ing] to believe they are more Catholic than the pope." It also besmirches the Cardinal Newman Society, a leading voice in opposition to Obama's appearance, as "a self-appointed guardian of orthodoxy."

What the Times doesn't tell its readership (whose number continues to dwindle) is that protesters of Obama's appearance simply want to uphold what the full body of United States Catholic bishops boldly declared in a statement five years ago:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

If the Times is still unclear of what those "fundamental moral principles" include, the very same document states,

[T]he killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified ... The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law ... Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.

Bestowing an honorary degree to Obama - which Notre Dame plans to do - clearly is "honoring" the man. Therefore, Notre Dame is unquestionably in defiance of the United States bishops.

By not citing the bishops' important 2004 document, the Times dishonestly misleads its readers.

But the most dishonest passage in the Times' editorial is the following:

The argument against Obama's appearance at Notre Dame is that it's incompatible with the church's opposition to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. But a similar charge could have been leveled against the 2001 appearance at the university of George W. Bush, who as governor of Texas presided over scores of executions. Although the church's objections to the death penalty aren't as absolute as its opposition to abortion, U.S. bishops have taught since 1980 that "the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty." For them, the death penalty is also a "life" issue.

The Times' statement that "the church's objections to the death penalty aren't as absolute as its opposition to abortion" is an understatement to say the least. It's also the key reason why President Bush was an acceptable speaker at Notre Dame but Obama is not.

What the Times doesn't tell its readers (here's the dishonesty again) is that the very same document that it cites says,

... Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime, and that the state may take appropriate measures to protect itself and its citizens from grave harm ...

and

We recognize that many citizens may believe that capital punishment should be maintained as an integral part of our society's response to the evils of crime, nor is this position incompatible with Catholic tradition. We acknowledge the depth and the sincerity of their concern.

See the dishonesty by the Times? Their editorial gives no indication of this sentiment at all. [Note: The bishops' 1980 clearly speaks in opposition to the death penalty in the United States. The statement basically says that modern conditions in the United States are able to fully protect the population from dangerous individuals and therefore render the death penalty unjustifiable. There's a lot more to this, but that's the gist of it. I recommend everyone read the statement.]

In addition, when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote in a 2004 letter,

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.

Again, the Times exhibits no clue at all about this key aspect of this very issue..

The Times assertion that "the pope's mandate is consistent with the position adopted by Notre Dame in the Obama controversy" is flat-out false.

+_+_+_+

Previous:
Clueless on Catholicism V: LAT Wrong on Papal Infallibility - Again

See also:
Anti-Catholicism at the Los Angeles Times - A Catalogue