If the Los Angeles Times' Tim Rutten is determined to establish himself as one of the nation's worst journalists when it comes to writing on the issues of abortion and Catholicism, he's doing a helluva job. His latest column on the Obama-Notre Dame controversy unfairly characterizes pro-lifers and misrepresents the scandal.

Here's how Rutten portrays pro-life Catholics who are protesting President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame:

Some people just won't be happy until the Inquisition has office space again and kindling is being piled up around the local stakes.

Puh-leeze. Rutten is completely ignorant to the fact that those who protest Obama's appearance are simply seeking to uphold what the full body of United States Catholic bishops declared 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.

And if Rutten or anyone else is unclear as to what those "fundamental moral principles" are, the very same document states:

[T]he killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified.

Got it?

As the bishops' statement five years ago clearly indicates, Notre Dame's invitation clearly defies the Church in the United States. Yet that doesn't stop the dishonest Rutten from repeating an awful smear published by the National Catholic Reporter against the Cardinal Newman Society, a leading voice in opposition to Obama's appearance at Notre Dame. The Newman Society is a Catholic group that is "dedicated to renewing and strengthening Catholic identity at America's 224 Catholic colleges and universities." But as Rutten reports, the Reporter newspaper has accused the Newman Society of wanting Catholic universities to become "Catholic madrasas."

Rutten characterizes the Reporter simply as an "influential" newspaper. In fact, it is unquestionably an outspoken liberal newspaper that frequently provides a forum for dissident Catholics, including losers like Fr. Richard McBrien. While Rutten has no hesitation in slapping a "conservative" label on anything representing what is traditional, he flat-out refuses to label anyone "liberal" in this debate.

Rutten also implies that only two "marginal" bishops are against Obama's appearance. First of all, bishops generally adhere to the pastoral practice of staying out of matters outside their own dioceses. Second, as the American Papist blog has shown, at least four bishops have publicly voiced opposition to Obama's Notre Dame appearance.

In addition, Rutten applies the utter fallacious approach of citing letters to the editor as a reliable gauge of public opinion. Rutten:

According to Notre Dame's campus newspaper, student reaction to the invitation has been overwhelmingly positive, though the paper reports an interesting split: 70% of the letters it has received from alumni oppose the president's appearance, while 73% of current students and 97% of the graduating seniors approve of the invitation.

Rutten continues his dishonesty by not informing his readers that the Observer, the paper to which Rutten refers, received letters from only 282 total students, and no number was given as to how many of those were graduating seniors. Graduate and undergraduate enrollment at Notre Dame in 2007-2008 was 11,733 students. For Rutten to report that these letters are somehow a reliable gauge of the opinion of the issue at Notre Dame is downright laughable, if it weren't so dishonest.

Rutten also doesn't bother to inform his readers that ten student groups at Notre Dame are voicing opposition to Obama's appearance.

Finally, Rutten simply casts this issue off as "GOP activists" trying to drum up support for "single-issue voters." Rutten, of course, provides nothing substantial to back this assertion.

And as far as Rutten's "single issue" canard: If abortion is the atrocity that it really is, what is wrong in determining one's vote by this very issue? Would Rutten have been railing against "single-issue" voters in 1864 who only gauged their vote on wanting to abolish slavery? (I would love Rutten to answer this one. Are you out there, Tim?)

+_+_+_+

Also from TheMediaReport.com:

Book Review: William Lobdell's 'Losing My Religion'

Attorney John Manly : An Index