The Obamination of Notre Dame

   You can’t help but think about the constant drum-beat of Roman Catholic apologists in attacking sola scriptura as you consider the speech given by Barak Obama at Notre Dame. Why? It’s fairly obvious. We are told that Rome has this God-given unity found in “tradition,” and a living head who can interpret doctrine and safeguard the faith. Yet, the fact is that a majority of US Catholics don’t seem to be benefitting from this source of “unity,” in that they voted for a man who stands inalterably opposed to key elements of their church’s teaching, particularly in reference to the murder of unborn children. It seems a majority of elected Roman Catholics likewise care little about what the Pope says, or the Church teaches. But, at the same time, the Church of Rome does nothing about these things, allowing pro-abortion Catholics to remain in communion with her. Sure, a few maverick bishops have spoken out, but what about all the ones who don’t, and who continue to allow these politicians who mock Rome’s teachings to remain in their “care”?
   For most of us, there’s an obvious question to be answered here: why didn’t the Pope call up the priest who runs Notre Dame and tell him to rescind the invitation to the most pro-abortion American President of all time? If you answer, “That would be politically damaging,” you’ve just said a mouthful about the Bishop of Rome. If you say “He doesn’t have that power” well, ditto. But if you consider what Obama said to the graduating students (to which they often applauded), in essence he said, “Truth? Divine revelation? Come on, that’s just one viewpoint. Let’s all just get along, OK?” And if the polls are accurate, a majority of those graduates were in full agreement with Obama, not with the Pope. At Notre Dame. In fact, I bet the majority of the teaching staff voted for Obama as well and agreed with his relativism in his speech.
   So honestly, to all our Roman Catholic friends who love to berate the sufficiency of Scripture, attack sola scriptura, and in general exalt the wondrous “unity” that comes from having a Pope, pray tell: what good is having an infallible leader who doesn’t lead? As the “shepherd” of the flock, he surely knew a ravenous wolf was going to be let loose in the flock of students at Notre Dame, did he not? Why did he do nothing? Indeed, why are the leftist liberal academics of Rome allowed to promote their unbelief under the banner of Rome day in and day out?
   I’m not the only one wondering these things. Many a Roman Catholic today is wondering as well. That is honestly one of the reasons you see the sedevacantist movement growing. Many are giving up and looking for someone literally “more Catholic than the Pope.” And while I would love to sit back and watch Gerry Matatics debate someone like Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Jimmy Akin, Steve Ray, etc., the fact is that both sides can make their case based upon the very same body of documents, since, obviously, there is no one consistent interpretation of the mountain of “stuff” Rome has produced. Rome’s pronouncements do not clarify, they muddle.
   So those of us out here watching the ever-changing saga of modern Rome have to wonder: if the Roman Church’s teachings do not even carry the moral weight that should have produced embarrassment on the part of the hierarchy of Notre Dame, just what good are they, and how does this reflect upon Rome’s claims of ecclesiastical supremacy?