With two degrees from Our Lady's university (termed a "double-domer" in alumni circles) I took offense at Kathleen Parker's op-ed in yesterday’s Washington Post. Contrary to Ms. Parker's last paragraph assertion, Notre Dame does not belong to the right wing of the pro-life movement; it is not "their beloved institution." Likewise, as the front page of L'Osservatore Romano reminds us today, the Roman Catholic Church also does not belong to any wing. Deo gratia.

Parker's argument insisting that President Obama back out of the Notre Dame commencement draws its rhetorical flourishes -- despite an out-of-place quotation from my beloved Walker Percy -- from the spin machines that have labored over the last hundred days to brand the president "an agent of death." "He is more radical," Parker writes, "than all previous presidents on the life issue, with his loosening of federal funding for abortion and embryonic stem cell research, as well as his campaign promise to pass the Freedom of Choice Act."

The Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, sees things a bit differently. In today's front page piece entitled, "The 100 days that did not shake the world," the papal newspaper observes, refuting self-serving analyses from America's radical right, that the new president has operated with more caution than predicted in most areas, including in international relations and in domestic economic policy.

More pointedly, it continues: "On ethical questions, too-which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops-Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed." In apparent opposition to the arguments like those of Kathleen Parker, the Vatican account explains that the new draft guidelines for stem-cell research do not represent the significant policy shift many feared. L'Osservatore Romano notes that the guidelines "do not allow the creation of new embryos for research or therapeutic purposes, for cloning or for reproductive ends, and federal funds may be used only for experimentation with excess embryos." The administration itself had asserted that it is committed to continuing high levels of funding for non-embryonic stem cell research and that its donor consent agreements are more stringent than those previously penned by the Bush administration. In my opinion, the guidelines are more restrictive than what a McCain administration would have crafted.

The Vatican story on Obama's first hundred days, moreover, also tellingly signals its support for the Pregnant Women's Support Act (H.R. 2035), abortion reduction legislation introduced by pro-life Democrats on Capitol Hill, including the primary sponsor, Tennessee Congressman Lincoln Davis, and Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey. In regard to the issues of the culture of life, such abortion reduction policies, the Vatican paper claims, "could represent a rebalancing in support of maternity." Not coincidentally, the Obama administration is also moving to develop abortion reduction legislation.

Influential American bishops are now supporting these prudential pro-life efforts from Democrats. Last Friday, Cardinal Justin Rigali, USCCB chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, wrote all members of Congress asking them to co-sponsor and endorse H.R. 2035. Perhaps even reaching out to the Obama administration, the cardinal maintained that the bill presents "authentic common ground" across the political divide of the life issues. But is the new prudence from the Vatican and Cardinal Rigali too little too late?

Too little. Welcome as it is, the Church's move toward promoting abortion reduction and common ground likely will have little impact on the right wing activists who have the media spotlight. In those ranks, abortion reduction arguments are anathema. "It's a sellout, as far as we are concerned," said Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League in a February Washington Post interview. "We don't think it's really genuine. You don't have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions." And as for the cardinal's touted "authentic" common ground, Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee predicted in the Post that "the common ground Obama seeks for the pro-life movement is the burial ground." Such activists will not be cowed by late and half-hearted hierarchical whispers for prudence. Indeed, it's not at all clear that the new prudence initiative -- if that's what this is -- has broad support from the American bishops themselves.

Too late... Over the last hundred days the administration has consolidated its position and leadership. Both today's numbers and long-term numbers are all on the administration's and the Democrats' side: overwhelming support from Latinos, overwhelming support from the young, overwhelming support in the House of Representatives, what looks like now a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And, every indication points to this new Democratic reality in Washington as one that will be in place for a good many years.

A hundred days ago, I was sure that FOCA, ending the conscience clause, and similar terrible policies had no real chance in an Obama administration because the president needed Catholic support. I hoped that prudent but faithful Catholics would engage with the administration on issues of social welfare, the common good, and abortion reduction, to become a critical part of the administration's governing coalition. A hundred days of apocalyptic attacks on the administration that--rightly or wrongly--are labeled in everyone's mind as "Catholic" may well be closing hoped for opportunities to leverage contemporary public policy toward the culture of life and the common good. Who wins then?

All things considered, Obama might indeed withdraw from the Notre Dame commencement as Kathleen Parker advises. Parker thinks he would do so out of respect for Catholic sensibilities. I fear he may do so because our moment for common ground is passing.