The Fruits of President Obama's Notre Dame Address

In my discussion of President Obama's 2009 Commencement Address at the University of Notre Dame, I noted that the President was attempting to substitute "fair-mindedness" for truth, with the intention of co-opting those who know that abortion is wrong, by convincing them that we all want the same thing. The effect, I argued, is to ensure that abortion remains legal and—despite the smokescreen of dialogue—beyond debate.

Now, in the wake of the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, it has become ever more clear just how far apart those who support life and those who support "choice" really are. If you believe as the Catholic Church teaches, that human life begins at conception, what kind of "dialogue" can you possibly have with those who declare that George Tiller is a "martyr" and a "saint"?

Without making any kind of judgment on the final state of Tiller's soul, we can say this: For Christians, a martyr dies in the defense of the Faith—the Faith that has taught from its earliest days that abortion is an abomination not to be practiced by Christians (and, in doing so, brought an end to the toleration of the practice in the Roman Empire). Tiller did not die defending Christianity; he died because an unstable man decided that he would usurp God and put an end to Tiller's destruction of unborn children.

And yet even now, those who support abortion—even the late-term abortions that George Tiller, unlike most abortionists, was willing to perform—are taking their cue from President Obama's speech and telling pro-lifers that what is needed is "toleration." Which means, in practice, the continuation (and even the expansion) of abortion in the United States.

Take, for instance, a comment from "MP" on my post, "Reader Question: Was the Murder of George Tiller Justified?":

Many of the comments here and elsewhere are preposterous not only (1) in their unwillingness to confront seriously the fact that individuals are sometimes faced with tragic choices, about which morally serious people can deeply disagree about the proper resolution, but also (2) in their presumptuousness in claiming to know what God’s judgment might be upon the life of Dr. Tiller.

MP is right on point 2, and I have consistently pointed out that the Catholic Church tells us that we cannot know in this life the final disposition of any man's soul. But point 1 is disingenuous at best. Yes, "morally serious people can deeply disagree" about matters such as abortion, but in the end, one side is right, and the other is wrong.

MP, who ends his comment with praise of Tiller for aiding "women and girls in tragic situations" (and thus may himself presume "to know what God’s judgment might be upon the life of Dr. Tiller") clearly knows which side he thinks is right. MP continues:

The fact of deep disagreement between morally serious people is the basis for the principle of toleration–which doesn’t mean accepting the judgment of those who disagree (or simply compromising oneself).

Under current constitutional law in the United States, "toleration" supports MP's side. So, in MP's solution, pro-lifers can continue to believe that which they believe, so long as they "tolerate" those who believe otherwise and allow all abortions—including the gruesome late-term variety that George Tiller specialized in—to continue.

Of course, it is hardly likely that MP would be so willing to preach "tolerance" if the situation were reversed—but that's the whole point of this rhetorical strategy. MP mentions that George Tiller was a "morally serious individual," and I agree. Tiller knew what he was doing—taking the life of a child—and yet he did so anyway. The willingness to engage in an evil act requires moral seriousness.

But that's not what MP means by "moral seriousness." Rather, he means that Tiller's "beliefs" were deeply held. Again, however, many people have deeply held beliefs that are also very, very wrong. To place such beliefs on the same footing with their opposites is a kind of "tolerance"—but it is the willingness to tolerate evil.

Read MP's comment in full, and then ask yourself where you might have heard it all before.

We can enter into a dialogue with death, and indeed we can even tolerate it. But when we do, we should not be surprised that death always wins.