An amen to the UND brouhahahaha
March 28, 2009, 11:40 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Apropos of the decision of Bishop D’Arcy to absent himself from the Notre Dame Commencement, the following lament was heard from an old friend in the clergy: “As for Bishop D’Arcy and his decision and many similar actions by hierarchs, I wish some bishop would stand up on the floor of the Conference and say, “Brothers, once when bishops leveled penalties, the effect was to isolate the miscreant from society. Now the effect seems to be to isolate us. Before we take that as a sign of how close to perdition everyone else is, perhaps we should think about our own inadequacies in dealing with the world around us.”
AMEN!
Calling out evil is one thing – isolation, vilification and finger-wagging that seems to be done without much charity is another.
The words you present us with are wise.
Amen indeed.
No, the words are not wise. Everywhere, Catholicism is in retreat, and the decision to invite Obama is just one more step backwards. Good for Bishop D’Arcy, and may God bless him and give him courage.
As for bishops getting it right….Las Cruces NM …si So Bend IN….no
“Everywhere, Catholicism is in retreat…”
‘Retreat’ is the wrong word choice.
Try ‘renewal’ — as called for by the bishops at Vatican II.
To Margaret: AMEN!!!
Thank you Margaret!
And thank you Ed Gleason…What the two bishops in NM could teach a few of their confreres…
Amen… Alleluia! (oops -it’s Lent)
The following is from Catholics United.
Thank you for standing with Notre Dame and supporting its decision to host President Obama. In less than 24 hours we collected more than 20,000 signatures. Will you help us keep the momentum by sending this petition to your family and friends?
Click here to tell your friends and family about the ‘We Support Notre Dame’ campaign.
After we launched our petition drive on Thursday, the Notre Dame administration announced that they were not backing down. The far right isn’t letting up either. Those attacking Notre Dame are claiming more than 190,000 signatures.
We need all hands on deck to spread the word about http://www.WeSupportNotreDame.org and to put the brakes on this latest effort to misuse the language of faith for political gain. Forward this message to your friends and family, or click here to use our convenient tell-a-friend form.
Help build the momentum and tell your friends and family about the ‘We Support Notre Dame’ campaign.
Our nation’s colleges and universities are meant to be places that embrace open dialogue about the issues of our day. Don’t let Notre Dame cave to political pressure. Help send a clear message that we welcome President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame by encouraging others to join the campaign.
Sincerely,
Notre Dame Alums in Support of Fr. Jenkins
Faithful America
Catholics United
Thank you, Margaret! I”m sure there are at least a few bishops who agree with the sentiment expressed in this quote. I wonder, however, whether they haven’t put their finger to the wind and decided against making such a statement, because the right-wings among them command too large and passionate an army. Is there any material (an article, book, blog, etc.) that profiles the more moderate wing of the American episcopacy? We know who the power players on the “other side” are. But who are their counterparts? How do they view their role? Do they consult often? Strategize? Commiserate with each other?
I remember the way Cardinal Bernardin’s Common Ground Initiative was attacked in concert by three East Coast confreres (Hickey, Law, and O’Connor, if memory serves–God bless Keeler for abstaining!). Is it possible that this episode left such a bad taste in everyone’s mouth that the more moderate among them have shied away from such approaches?
Any insights? Anybody?
Mark…you’re on the Mark.
A leader like Bernardin needs to stand up say ‘seamless garment’ and he will have the majority of bishops with him.
This partisan attack plan has been a 35 year failure and will be a continuing failure given the partisan leadership has fallen to Palin, Joe the plumber and Rush..[Geeze what losers !!]
Let’s put out a Catholic plan to reduce abortions.
In the petition-drive from “Ca;tholics United” (united for what?), the “other side” is described as “the far right,” but many of those opposed to the invitation of the President don’t see to be very far to the right. The “far right” among Catholics are the sedevacantists. “The Wanderer”, for example, is nowhere near that far right. Or is it the very fact of opposition to this invitation that places them on the “far right”? If so, does support for the invitation place one on the “far left”?
Margaret–
I’m not sure what motivates your clerical friend, but it sounds like he wants the bishops to do the popular thing, not the right thing. Is that what they teach at Notre Dame? You should point out to your friend that one is never “isolated” when one does the right thing…He is with you.
My impression is that there are many bishops (perhaps even a majority) who do not agree with the strategy of boycott, confrontation, and condemnation. They do agree with the church’s teaching on abortion, as do many on this blog. These bishops are not organized; they have no strategy; and they are not media hogs. Ergo, whatever they may think or hope for about resolving this matter, they are not prepared to offer an alternative strategy–at least in public. Many of them do not have their finger to the wind, they probably feel as helpless as most of us. We have had in other posts examples of sanity, e.g., Archbishop Wuerl. There are no Cardinal Bernardin’s in our midst, at the moment.
And…. some of our bishops are not the brightest lights in the church, brain-wise, and they don’t think very carefully about what they are saying and doing, alas!
MP: I don’t know what motivates my clerical friend, other than genuine distress at what SOME bishops are doing. He may think they are doing the popular thing (for some audiences) but not the right thing for the church. And while I’m at it, let me add that the prophetic stance is wholly abused by right and left.
Here is something to think about…. http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/03/quote-of-day.html
MOS–
Neither your friend (nor you, from what I’ve read) have made a moral argument why bishops who believe ND has made a serious mistake should keep their mouths shut. The bishops make a compelling moral argument: It’s wrong for a university that wants to consider itself Catholic to honor a person who has consistently supported legislation enabling the intentional destruction of innocent human life. This has nothing to do with “engaging in discourse” or any such thing–Obama has not been invited to a debate–this is about an institution thinking it can serve two masters. The bishops would be derelict in their role as teachers if they did not try to help Our Lady understand the error of her ways.
When Cardinal Eagan invited Obama as a guest of honor at the Al Smith dinner and Eagan paid for his dinner[hotel rooms too?] and laughed him up as he sat between McCain and Obama was the Cardinal serving two masters? Get over it… Obama will be in for eight years.
I am pretty sure I am recalling the following anecdote correctly, because I happened to be walking by the White House at the time:
Bill Clinton gave Cardinal Bernardin, along with a bunch of other people, some kind of recognition that was done at the White House. Cardinal Bernardin went, accepted it, and then walked outside and held a press conference to make his opposition to Clinton’s abortion stance clear.
There are so many more fruitful ways of engagement than boycott. I actually do get the negative symbolism of giving an honorary degree, though I must say I think honorary degrees have become sort of like pens or paperweights that are given away as tokens of appreciation for doing something in a professional capacity, like giving a speech, for free. I am guessing nobody has a problem if UND gives the president a pen for his efforts.
I actually don’t expect Obama to be much changed by the event (have you ever hosted anyone at this level? He won’t stay for lunch — he probably won’t even stay for the whole event and maybe not even Ms. Glendon’s remarks). But the main thing is this: his so-called faith tradition is just different from the RCC. Something that seems hard for many Catholics to accept is that, for so many people, they just don’t see the conflict between being personally opposed to abortion and keeping it legal. THIS is the issue you need to deal with — it’s a socio-political stance as much as a religious one, which is why continual restatement of the religious objection never addresses that which you would need to change in order to achieve a new status quo. This is also, I think, what Cathy Kaveny is getting at when she tells everyone to read Mary Ann Glendon’s book.
MP: The quote from my friend is not about the morality of abortion (I assure you he is opposed [as am I]). Nor would I dispute Bishop D’Arcey’s right to decline an invitation to attend the commencement for the reasons stated.
What is being discussed are strategic actions that make the church’s case (or not) for the church’s teachings which are far broader than its teaching prohibiting abortion. As others point out on this blog, Cardinal Egan, Archbishop Wuerl, and Archbishop Dolan have all taken a different stand by either extending a hand to the new president, or by making it clear they are not going to use reception of Communion as a weapon.
As a result, they remain in a strategic position to talk to the president (or his minions), to build on his clearly stated position that abortion is a moral issue, and to perhaps incrementally persuade him on particular pieces of policy. Equally, they remain in a position to talk to their fellow Catholics because they have not said or implied abortion is the first and only item in the Creed of the Catholic Church.
As for Notre Dame (and all other Catholic colleges and universities, [and equally all colleges and universities]), they could do more to cut the abortion rate among their own students, by prohibiting (on pain of expulsion) their students from drinking, than all the moral posturing involved in keeping the president from giving the commencement address and receiving an honorary degree.
Here’s a fruitful topic for dialogue between ND and President Obama:
“Medieval monk hailed by Barack Obama was a heretic, says Vatican”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987457.ece
Gosh, I think I had to write a short paper on Joachim of Fiora back in my medieval history class. I don’t think he was heretic back in the early sixties! Development of doctrine?
Maybe Larry Cunningham of UND’s theology department would know.
Many of the best people have been heretics while many of our worst people have been orthodox.
Indeed excessive drinking on campus needs attention as well as corpulent America. American mouths are imbibing 24/7 while millions are scraping garbage barrels.
While there are more miscarriages than births abortion is decidedly a non-issue. But good fare for celibates and others whom this does not affect at all.
I repeat my “AMEN” to Mrs. Steinfels’ introduction to this thread.
Instead of getting caugjhnt up in “far right” and “far left” discussions, which the posts here show there’s clearly division within our Church on this, could we focus on strategic eptness or ineptness in dealing with the situation, not only here but in many other threads as well.?
“Something that seems hard for many Catholics to accept is that, for so many people, they just don’t see the conflict between being personally opposed to abortion and keeping it legal. THIS is the issue you need to deal with —”:
Barbara –
IT seems to me this is an extremely important point, but the philosophical issues are rife with paradoxes.
It is my understanding that the Anglo-Saxon tradition assumes that individual conscience must yield to the dictates of law (communal conscience), and, paradoxically, this principle is itself a dictate of individual conscience.
On the other hand, the secular/Enlightenment tradition dictates that individaul conscience must be protected by law. but how is this possible when conscience says that I ought to have control of my own body, but the law says I may not kill an innocent person?
In Catholic tradition the teachings are also conflicting — conscience is said to trump everything, but conscience must be limited by Church teaching (whatever “Church teaching” means).
At any rate, I suspect that these attitudes are at the heart of a lot of the suspicion implicit in so many of the abortions discussions. On the one hand, the Anglo-Saxon, largely Protestant view asserts that we must persuade the community to change the law.while the Catholic position is that individual conscience trumps collective conscience (the law), This even leads some Catholics to break the law in protesting agaainst abortion clinics.
This is a gross over-simplification, of course. (There is, for instance, the thoroughly secular libertarian view that individual conscience trumps practically everything.) But I’m quite sure that conflicting theories of the relationship between law and conscience are the at root of the basic practical problem: what to *do* about abortion?
Anyone read the Perspective page in the Sunday Chicago Tribune? The entire page is entitled “Litmus Test at Notre Dame? With essays by Doug Kmiec (“Notre Dame’s common ground”) and George Weigel (“The university’s egregious error”).
I’m feeling like the odd man out on this issue (and others, I’m afraid). Maybe I’m just jealous that so many of you *seem* to find these issues open and shut. (Or maybe it is the medium. Blogdom is replete with expression of certainty and scare with expressions of ambivalence. Perhaps expressed ambiguity is a bore.)
I strongly support Obama. I affirm and respect Jenkin’s prudential judgment in granting him the commencement invitation. But I don’t think it is an obviously correct judgment and I think critics make points well worth consideration. I know Weigel is one of those ‘right wingers’ we dotCommonwealers loathe, but I think I ‘get’ him on this one.
Here’s what I’m wondering…
1. Are there any public policy positions so egregiously wrong that they should disqualify a proponent from a Catholic university commencement address invitation? Forgive me if I wonder whether many would not reverse positions were Dick Cheney invited to speak.
2. Are the battle lines now so tightly drawn between two vocal groups of Catholics, those who are anti-abortion and those who are anti-anti-abortion, so that we can officially pronounce the seamless garment dead? Yes, many conservative Catholics reject Bernardin’s consistent ethic of life initiative. But many progressive Catholics seem to pretend that Bernardin was in the ‘personally opposed but’ camp. He wasn’t. He must be turning in his grave at the state of the conversation.
3. Can Catholic Obama supporters even imagine how a sane, morally grounded person might oppose the ND invitation? Can Catholic Obama opponents even imagine how a sane, morally grounded person might support the ND invitation?
4. In a previous thread regarding the ND brouhaha, one weary correspondent suggested we just get the schism over with. Point taken. But when it comes to assessing blame for the severe polarization within the Catholic community, why is the consistent villain identified by both persuasions ‘them’?
5. How do we recover common ground? Is our MO when it comes to Catholics of the ‘other’ persuasion one of exasperation or of understanding? One commonality among culture war participants of both persuasions is woundedness. Maybe shared feelings might work when barbed repartee fails. For starters, can we get in touch with how prolife Catholics experience the withering contempt in which they are held by many secular progressives and not a few religious ones?
Here are the Kmic and Weigel essays to which Mr. McG refers:
Weigel
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-perspec0329weigelmar29,0,1658251.story
Kmiec
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-perspec0329kmiecmar29,0,7249210.story
Mike McG. –
I do not loathe George Weigel. I respect his good intentions, which after all, are what is most important about anyone.
What I do loathe are rhetorical statements such as the one he begins his article with: ”
When a university invites a prominent personality to deliver a commencement address and accept an honorary degree, a statement is being made to graduates, students, faculty, parents, alumni and donors: “This is someone whose work is worth emulating.” The invitation, in other words, is not to a debate, or to the opening of some sort of ongoing conversation. The invitation and the award of an honorary degree are a university’s stamp of approval on someone’s life and accomplishment.”
To reduce Obama, who has already by his election proven himself a healer in a quite remarkable way, to “a prominent personality” is to reduce this remarkable man to a celebrity. Damning by faint praise? Obviously. .
At the end of the paragraph Weigel accuses the university of approving “someone’s life and accomplishments” when in fact the university has not done any such thing. The university has made it clear that it does not honor all of Obama’s principles and actions. In other words, Weigel has misrepresented what Notre Dame is doing — honoring the truly important accomplishments of this man.
Yes, common ground is important. But common ground has to be based on facts, not rhetoric that distorts o4, worse, ignores factw.
No, I do not respect such ideological speech.
Bush, champion of the death penalty when he was govenor of Texas, spoke at Notre Dame. Where’s the seemless garment Mike spoke of?
Today’s !st reading from Jerimiah 31:31-34.
“I will place my law within them and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God and they shall be my people’
I say more in the hearts and less effort in the legislature.
Ahem … seamless :)
MOS-
Unfortunately I think it is too soon to say amen to the UND brouhaha. The “populist” condemnation of ND’s invitation to the President has a great deal of momentum. Now that Cardinal DiNardo has criticized Notre Dame, one would expect to hear from other bishops who may fear that their silence will undermine their prolife credentials. This “populist” reaction was launched by lay people—and the bishops are hurrying to get to the head of the parade.
What are the bishops to do? The outcome of the 2008 election left the bishops divided. Those who had argued the hierarchy should directly forbid Catholics to vote for Obama were set off from the majority of bishops who had opted to provide more indirect electoral guidance.
The “stop FOCA” campaign provided a temporary reunification within the ranks. But the question remained—how should the bishops deal with the Obama administration? Some bishops apparently are considering a stance of “chilly coexistence” (something less than peaceful co-existence.) Other bishops are supporting a strategy of active “non-intercourse” (i.e., the 1809 US policy aimed at Britain and France) and ostracism of the President as an unmitigated abortion extremist.
Cardinal George’s visit to the White House on March 18th seemed to signal the beginning of a “chilly accommodation.” However, the outcry over the Notre Dame invitation makes it improbable that other Church officials will follow in Cardinal George’s footsteps.
I can imagine that President Obama will inform Notre Dame, after his return from the meeting of the G20, that he is withdrawing his acceptance because he does not want to submerge the University’s graduation celebration in political controversy. This outcome will surely confirm those bishops set on the path of “non-intercourse.”
The bishops have been dragged into identifying the University of Notre Dame as the Catholic Church writ large. The invitation to President Obama is depicted as a hostile assault on the sanctuary of the Church’s core values. If President Obama is declared a persona non grata at Notre Dame, is there any Catholic venue at which this “wicked” man can appear? Do the American Catholic bishops really want to depict President Obama, rather than the reality of abortion, as the focal point of their moral condemnation?
Crystal:
Huh? No one I know has suggested that Bush exemplifies the seamless garment. Were there opposition to Bush’s speaking at Notre Dame, I certainly would have understood it. Had Tom Gumbleton, for example, objected publicly, I certainly would have seen his objection as congruent with his value system.
Again, my question as an Obama supporter and one who, on balance, endorses his speech at Notre Dame: Can we *understand* how someone reason otherwise?
Ed:
Does ‘less effort in the legislature’ extend to efforts to abolish capital punishment?
Weigel says: Since Inauguration Day, Obama has made several judgment calls that render Notre Dame’s invitation little short of incomprehensible. The president has put the taxpayers of the United States back into the business of paying for abortions abroad.
Since 1973, US aid to organizations outside the United States could not be used to provide or promote abortions whether or not the Mexico City Policy was in effect. Obama did not “put the taxpayers of the United States back into the business of paying for abortions abroad.” The Mexico City Policy went farther than prohibiting US aid from being used for abortions. It prohibited US aid from going to international organizations that did many worthy things aside from providing abortions but that also provided abortions. Within the United States, millions of government dollars go to Planned Parenthood for drug treatment programs, breast cancer detection programs, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and so on. Government money going to Planned Parenthood, however, may not be used for abortions. The rescinding of the Mexico City Policy now means International Planned Parenthood — which could receive no US aid — may not receive the same kind of government aid the Planned Parenthood receives within the United States.
Some argue that money is fungible, and if you provide money for, say, HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention to an organization that also provides abortions, you are freeing up money the organization may receive elsewhere so that it may be used for abortions. However, the people who argue that money is fungible when given to an organization that provides abortion never seem to argue that aid given to religious schools for purely secular purposes (computer equipment, for example) violates the principle of separation of church and state by freeing up resources that might otherwise have been used for computers to be used for purely religious purposes.
Weigel says: He has expanded federal funding for embryo-destructive stem-cell research and defended that position in a speech that was a parody of intellectually serious moral reasoning.
Yes, embryonic stem-cell research cannot proceed without embryos having been destroyed, but Obama did not approve the use of government funds to destroy embryos. There are over a thousand existing stem-cell lines now that could be used for government-funded stem-cell research without another embryo being destroyed.
Weigel says: The Obama administration threatens to reverse federal regulations that protect the conscience rights of Catholic and other pro-life health-care professionals.
These regulations were put into effect by the Bush administration January 20, 2009, the day Bush left office. Pro-life health-care professionals are already protected by a number of laws, including civil rights laws. It is debatable whether additional conscience protection is necessary, and highly debatable whether the Provider Conscience Regulation was the right approach. There was this interesting post on Mirror of Justice a few days ago:
One of the things missing from the Provider Conscience Regulation is balance, so indeed it may well be possible for an employee to make a wholly unforeseeable (or unforeseen) claim, and it may be a doctor in the emergency room rather than an assistant who objects to cutting flowers. It is a very interesting question how far the government should go in protecting the right of conscience. I feel very strongly that selling cigarettes to someone is objectionable. Should the government protect my right to get a job as a cashier in a supermarket, a gas station, or a convenience store and then refuse to ring up cigarettes? Or is it up to me to find employment where I am not involved with selling cigarettes? There are a number of places where Muslims are asserting their conscience rights. For example, I read of a case of a Muslim supermarket cashier who would not scan a customer’s frozen pepperoni pizza because it contained pork. Muslim cab drivers in some cities have been refusing to pick up potential passengers at the airport whom they believe to be carrying alcohol in their suitcases. How far does the right of conscience go?
It seems to me that unless Weigel and the others are willing to acknowledge that their characterizations of Obama’s actions are so vastly oversimplified as to be essentially false, they should not expect us to stand in judgment of him on the basis of what they say.
Retreat, hell! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Circle the wagons. Run in circles, scream and shout.
That’s a GOOD Catholic way to further alienate members and non-members alike.
If you can’t persuade, then excoriate, excommunicate and genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.
If President Obama is declared a persona non grata at Notre Dame, is there any Catholic venue at which this “wicked” man can appear?
J P Farry,
It does seem to me that the pro-life movement and some Catholic bishops are acting as if Obama is not merely a person with whom they have a profound disagreement on abortion, but rather as if he were an evil man to be ostracized. And of course the United States is consistently depicted as the most egregiously offending country on life issues, while India, China, and Russia are overlooked, and while most European countries provide free abortions to their citizens through national health insurance.
There comes a time when opposition to national policy may become so much a focus that protesters cease becoming the loyal opposition and just become the opposition. As I remarked recently elsewhere, I am beginning to feel toward the pro-life “extremists” a little like the conservatives who were so contemptuous of Vietnam war protesters back in the 1960s and early 1970s. Someday I may find myself saying, “America — love it or leave it!”
I concur with JP Farry when he wrote: “This “populist” reaction was launched by lay people—and the bishops are hurrying to get to the head of the parade.”
When I first read dotCommonweal, my impression was that many of the liberal posters here frequently made intra-Catholic issues a matter of “bishops vs. the people” (or “Vatican vs. the people”). Which is true sometimes. but IMO usually not. More often it is “people vs. people,” as illustrated by the current brouhaha (an apt choice of word from Margaret Steinfels, btw).
I’m glad too that the “rally the troops” post has evolved into a more substantial debate.
JP Farry: “Unfortunately I think it is too soon to say amen to the UND brouhaha. The “populist” condemnation of ND’s invitation to the President has a great deal of momentum. Now that Cardinal DiNardo has criticized Notre Dame,…”
Having googled Cardinal DiNardo, and read the statement expressing his disappointment with UND, I’m not sure this is a deal breaker. He is the ordinary of Galveston-Houston, which means he is the same as Olmstead, and any other bishop who’s gone after UND. I hasten to add that the brouhahaha has not made its way out of Catholic precincts no matter how many have signed petitions yea or nay. I suppose that could change.
David Nickol: thank you! for once again giving an exegesis of the Weigel claims about Obama. I wonder if we could just get this on Wiki for easy reference.
Hi Mike.
I just meant that I wonder if the same Bishops who are so against Obama speaking at Notre Dame had any problems with Bush speaking, or if for them the abortion issue trumps every other life issue, including the death penalty.
Can we *understand* how someone reason otherwise?
I can see the other side, yes.
Bravo David Nickol! Now why is George getting Chicago trib space you should be getting?
As to Joachim di Fiore above, by the way, Joseph Ratzinger was/is a great student of his as well. And a critic of di Fiore’s odd kind of medieval dispensationalism. But I don’t think he has ever gone so far as to decribe him in such apocalytpic terms, so to speak. I am generally a fan of Cantlamessa, but he may want to check in with his boss on this one…
just meant that I wonder if the same Bishops who are so against Obama speaking at Notre Dame had any problems with Bush speaking, or if for them the abortion issue trumps every other life issue, including the death penalty.
Franly, yes, abortion, and desturction of innoncent human life on the scale that President Obama has just authorized, does, in fact trump the dozed or so executions of the guilty that Bush authorized as governots.
–
In any instance, it would be nice to see a better answer than, “but Republicans are bad, too!” to the question of whether President Obama’s actions rise to the level where an honorary degree from the prominent Catholic university would not be appropriate. And if not, where that line is, other than “someone in my politicial party.”
I see Cardinal DiNardo’s criticism of Notre Dame as significant since he was elected last November to be the Chairman of Pro-Life activities of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to replace Cardinal Rigali in November 2009. Cardinal DiNardo received more votes for this position than Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. His election was seen as a victory for the “moderates!”
Franly, yes, abortion, and desturction of innoncent human life on the scale that President Obama has just authorized, does, in fact trump the dozed or so executions of the guilty that Bush authorized as governots.
I don’t recall the place in the NT where it say “innocent” life is more worthy than any other kind, and I don’t think lives are like widgets, with more of them being worth more.
Here are some background questions to consider:
Would this brouha have happened with any other Catholic university or college (well, perhaps Steubenville!)? Isn’t the context here that UND claims premier place among Catholic schools? It has convinced all Catholics that this is so. Since it’s premier, it exhibits that by inviting POTUS, no matter the political party, and all POTUSes agree because they too think that UND is the premier Catholic school.
So let us imagine our favorite Catholic school and ask if Obama was speaking at Georgetown, USF, Rensselear, St. Catherine’s, St. Thomas, etc., if this would have had quite this play and display?
Mike McG asks;
Ed:
Does ‘less effort in the legislature’ extend to efforts to abolish capital punishment?
I thought Richardson’s change of heart was an example of a bishop scoring without condemnation.. more of that.. less finger wagging..
Despite the Joachim/Obama hazari in the threads above, once more I say”Amen” to Margaret’s original post and add that Kenneth Woodard’s op-ed in the Washingtom Post today is spot on as well.
But let’s not talk about strategic ineptitude.
(P.S. I guess the Right to life movement needs more episcopal “encouragement” suc has Mr. Terry and SArchb. Burke at the National Press club. Jimmy Mac is rihght agai nabout how to alienate lots of folks to please some.)
Here’s the link to Ken Woordward’s op-ed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901352.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Relevant quote:
“Obama is not coming to Notre Dame to press a pro-choice agenda but to address issues that affect all American citizens, including Catholics. He will be speaking to students who, like other Americans, gave him a majority of their votes. He will receive an honorary degree because it is the custom, not as a blessing on any of his decisions.”
“At the end of the paragraph Weigel accuses the university of approving “someone’s life and accomplishments” when in fact the university has not done any such thing. The university has made it clear that it does not honor all of Obama’s principles and actions. In other words, Weigel has misrepresented what Notre Dame is doing — honoring the truly important accomplishments of this man.”
How do you do that exactly? Honor only the important parts but not the others I mean. I imagine the doctorate honoris causa does not read that it is applicable for only certain legal accomplishments and not others of the recipient. Weigel is saying that for the 99% of people who are not debating this issue daily, all they see is an ostensibly Catholic University confering a degree honoris causa on this person, giving him priceless earned media and making a soft-money contribution to, and endorsement of, his re-election campaign.
“To reduce Obama, who has already by his election proven himself a healer in a quite remarkable way, to “a prominent personality” is to reduce this remarkable man to a celebrity. Damning by faint praise? Obviously. .”
On a side note, who has he healed? And why is it a reduction to be a celebrity? A reduction from what? That’s what a politician is – they win popularity contents.
MAT – I think it’s a mistake to imagine that 99% of the public views this as “a soft-money contribution to, and endorsement of, his re-election campaign.” The proportion of the public thinking about the 2012 election in this, the third month of Obama’s first term, is surely much, much smaller than that. (Election fatigue is one big reason; the fact that we have many more pressing things on our minds at the moment is a much more significant reason.) As someone has just noted in the later post on this topic: Obama has been invited because he is the president. I would add, because he is the newly elected president. That’s what Notre Dame does: they invite the president to speak right after he takes office. Were they making a soft-money contribution to Bush’s reelection campaign in 2001? I certainly wouldn’t have thought about it that way.
Mollie: I think I did not express myself well. My point was not that 99% of people are thinking about the beginning of the 2012 presidential election season this summer but that they are not paying attention to the discussions which are happening here for example about the granting of this honorary degree. The significance of that, IMO, is that when they do turn to the re-election season later this year and next year, they will not recall what qualifiers Fr. Jenkins may or may not have made to the local or student newspapers, but I bet they will remember the television commercials touting the speaker’s Catholic bona fides which will show the speaker receiving his honoris causa degree from Fr. Jenkins (or his designee) in the shadow of Our Lady atop the Golden Dome at the most prestigious Catholic university in the land.
As to your point about President Bush, yes, I am in the Amy Wellborn camp that it is inappropriate for Catholic universities to invite “active” politicians to be the commencement speaker or to award them honorary degrees. I do not think it advances the educational ends of the school and only serves to entrench the political party in power by giving them a captive audience and priceless earned media, whether it be President Bush or the current President.
“That’s what Notre Dame does: they invite the president to speak right after he takes office.”
I do not believe that is accurate. My recollection is that President Clinton never received an honoris causa degree from ND nor did he speak at commencement. Did he? I thought that was why we are having this debate – i.e. because this is the first time someone with the speaker’s policies towards parochial primary and secondary schools and views on life issues is receiving an honorary degree from ND?
I don’t know about Clinton, or any other president; I don’t have time to look it up at the moment. I think the fact that this invitation mirrors the Bush one in its timing is enough to support the point that Obama has been invited qua president and commander-in-chief. There’s a more fruitful conversation around that point in a later thread, but personally I wish we could be discussing the significance of his decision to accept the invitation, instead of the appropriateness of inviting him. (Incidentally: parochial schools? Really?)