For starters, I (of course) meant “Martin”, not “Charlie.” (And yes, to all those who pointed out the error, I agree that “Apocalypose Now” is infinitely superior to “Hot Shots! Part Deux”.)
Next, I did not intend to (and so, did not) — as one commenter put it — “decry” the recognition of Sheen, whom I admire. What I “sigh[ed]” about was the fact — and it is a fact — that someone who comes so close to being an interestingly consistent and therefore provocative witness to the Gospel of Life dropped the ball, at the end of the day, with the “personally opposed but . . . ” position. Sheen’s failure here — to take a position that would actually cost him, in the world he inhabits — is a missed opportunity. It does not surprise me that Notre Dame is going to honor him — there are many good reasons to honor him — but it does disappoint me that Sheen (who is not, after all, running for office or seeking a seat on the Supreme Court) is unable, or unwilling, to actually say what’s what on the issue.
Finally, my colleague Morning’s Minion wrote, in the comments section to my original post, something along the lines of “well, Sheen’s no different than John Roberts, who is actually in a position to do something about abortion.” Actually, it is not at all obvious to me that John Roberts — whose job, of course, is to decide legal cases — is in a better position to change hearts, minds, and practices on abortion. And, in any event, to observe, as Roberts did, that Roe is the law of the land is not to do what Mr. Sheen did, i.e., to contend that the abortion is not a wrong of the kind the law should prevent or discourage.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In