While some pro-Obama Catholics promoted this claim, US bishops were resistant and several publicly denounced it. After the election, the divisions intensified when the University of Notre Dame invited the President to receive an honorary degree and speak at its graduation ceremony. Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, who was also supposed to be honored at the ceremony, withdrew because Notre Dame was defying the instruction of the bishops not to honour politicians who promoted abortion and other grave forms of injustice. To date, the wounds remain open and it is not clear how they might be healed.
Whatever one thinks of his policies, however, the election of Obama as the first African-American President is clearly historically important and I was interested in how George thought his Presidency would develop. As regards the much disputed healthcare policy George predicted that the best Obama could hope for was disappointment among radical Democrats and electoral punishment from resentful Republicans set to leave him an isolated figure during the second half of his presidency. On foreign policy, George is unyielding in his criticism: "In the Middle East, the administration has weakened the Palestinian Authority, thus strengthening radical Palestinian elements, while at the same time frightening and alienating the Israelis." In Iraq, "he has carried on with the war which he promised to end, and in Afghanistan his actions seem half-hearted".
Yet George rejoices in the election of an African-American to the highest office in the land. He points out, however, that on social issues, including abortion, sexuality and marriage, African-Americans are more conservative than the electorate as a whole, and hence Obama is far to their Left: "Notable African-American religious leaders have been stepping forward to criticise the first African-American president for his social liberalism. It will be interesting to see where this goes."
Against this background, I wonder whether Catholic clergy and bishops are becoming sidelined in current US debates. George counters that while the bishops have encouraged lay initiative and leadership on the sanctity of human life and the protection of marriage, they have been more than willing at key moments to speak out themselves. In the debate about healthcare reform, they have been in the forefront of efforts to prevent public subsidisation of abortion and the extent of their success, notwithstanding the enduring humiliation of the clergy abuse scandal, and despite the administration's opposition, has surprised many observers, liberals and conservatives alike.
Having studied in Britain, returned to it periodically and continued to follow events here, what does George make of British Catholic engagement in policy debates? He is impressed by the richness of the spiritual lives of many British Catholics, but observes that on the whole we seem to have a sense of still being an insular minority in a country where Catholicism remains suspect.
Post your comment
- Letter from Ukraine: The Festival Reviving Lost Literature
- Admit It, Mr Kerry: You Blundered
- Bismarck Versus Blair — A Foreign Policy Crossroads
- Arab Spring, Islamist Summer — What Next?
- The Diplomat the Whole World Ignores
- The Blob Has Run Schools For Decades. Not Any More
- Would You Intervene — Or Pass On The Other Side?
- He Died That Others Might Live In Peace
- The Hero's Journey is Hollywood's McMyth
- Online Only: Countering the Counter-Jihadists
- Online Only: The Price Paid for Criticising Islam
- 'Please Sir, I Just Want to Learn More'
- Why Students Should Be Glad To Pay Tuition Fees
- A 'Liberal Racist'? Me? I Felt Like a Heretic
- Demolish the Relics of Yesterday's Future
- Was Britain Right To Go To War In 1914?
- German Victorians Who Helped Transform Britain
- The Alternative History of an Undivided India
- Online Only: Heirs to the Left
- ONLINE ONLY: The Hayward Gallery's Fashionable Primitives

















