In some of the conservative world, black is white, lies are truth, and bitter is really sweet. Michael Novak takes a swing and misses with some Bushy exaggeration on his square today. He has a complaint, maybe a valid one, about a former college president wishing the prez had not been invited to commencement. I don’t like the president’s views or actions, but I think a disinvite might not have been appropriate, despite his variance from Catholic teaching on war and torture. But naturally, I don’t think that pro-choice speakers should be automatically excluded from speaking engagements that do not touch upon the abortion issue.

Or maybe even when they do. In Novak’s words, we Catholics “might actually learn to enjoy good arguments with persons of goodwill who roundly disagree with (us) on fundamentals, as well as on concrete matters of fact.”

I wonder if Novak lands himself in the anti-Burke camp on this one. Instead of banning Crow or McCaskill from speaking, maybe he should pony up on the line to the podium and go toe to toe with proponents of choice. If Novak is saying Bush’s appearance at a commencement is a good thing because most all of the graduates are on the dotted line to attend, what if a nice public debate between a bishop and a politican or entertainer would likewise get the troops out? Something worth thinking about in the black is white universe.

I have to laugh at the flexibility of the Right’s arguments against the Left. When it’s about liturgy, we’re all moonbeams and clowns. When it’s about liberation theology, we’re just godless communists in sheeps’ clothing. When it’s about protesting a speaker, we’re imperialists.

Get this:

To listen to (left-wing Catholics), you would think that the Catholic social ethic has four main emphatic tenets and five great silences.

Well … I don’t know what “I” would think–being part of the “you,” but I actually listen to both the left and the right. And truly, liberals and conservatives are far more diverse (to coin a term) than to pin most any of us down on these nine talking points. Novak tries to invite people in to his viewpoint, but I would add an appropriate Latin phrase here: caveat emptor.

He seems to think the Catholic left is silent on abortion, ESCR, crime against the poor, fatherless families, and anti-Muslim violence. The last one was a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, because I would have thought Novak would talk about violence against Christians, but hey: I can give the man a break.

I’ve generally found that some of the Catholic Right talk so loud and long on the first two, that lots of us lefties get drowned out in the sound check.

Naturally, as an adoptive parent, I have some ideas about fatherless families. And they’re not really positive ones for either the dimwits who leave their children and their children’s mothers behind or the politicians who cannot put enough teeth into family-friendly laws.

If being a pacifist is so bad, I’m having trouble making the connection to our silence on crimes against the poor.

But maybe you have a link we can make. If so, give it a go.