Holy Cross head writes to Obama re Notre Dame (and updates with Card. George, Archbp. Quinn, et al)
When I first saw the text of the 13-page letter from U.S. Father Hugh W. Cleary, Holy Cross superior general in Rome, to President Obama, regarding Obama’s scheduled commencement address at Notre Dame, I couldn’t make heads or tails of it. It seemed to circle around on itself so much I thought it was a hoax. But it’s real.
It strikes such odd chords, welcoming Obama and complimenting him with one hand–often the left one–then painting him with the broad brush of “intrinsic evil” and saying Catholics can’t get a hearing from the government. Even though, of course, Catholics make up nearly a third of Congress, just as an example, and five-ninths of the Supreme Court, and there’s the Vice-Presidency, etc.
And he accuses Obama of using the same tactic of “shunning” that is being used against him, and laments it, but indicates it is the only recourse for Catholics? He says he can’t in good conscience vote for any major party candidate–but did he protest Bush’s 2001 speech at Notre Dame? And the comparison to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami? Wassup with that? All the stuff about pope-bashing, a persecuted church…
In any case, I don’t know Father Cleary, but this whole thing seems odd. Saying he has no control over the invitation, as well, though he also indicates he could make Father John Jenkins, the Holy Cross priest who is Notre Dame’s president, do something.
Whether Clearly’s letter is convincing or effective, I guess we’ll see. He seems not to oppose Obama’s appearance, though it’s hard to tell. He wants dialogue–of a fashion. Other, more perceptive reactions/analyses welcome. John Thavis has the write-up from Rome here. I have the full text posted at Pontifications.
ND Outrage Update: America magazine, as promised, has the official redacted version of Fr. Cleary’s letter to President Obama here. It is much more successful, I think, largely thanks to editing.
Better still, from my point of view, FWIW, is a commentary on the whole Notre Dame-Obama controversy by the retired archbishop of San Francisco, John R. Quinn. It is titled “A Critical Moment
Barack Obama, Notre Dame and the future of the U.S. church.” I have always greatly appreciated Archbishop Quinn’s intellect and approach, and they are on display here. Quinn says this is “a critical moment” for the church in the United States, and poses several key question as to how this uproar will affect the future of the faith and the pro-life movement.
He concludes:
We must weigh very seriously the consequences if the American bishops are seen as the agents of publicly embarrassing the newly elected president by forcing him to withdraw from an appearance at a distinguished Catholic University. The bishops and the president serve the same citizens of the same country. It is in the interests of both the church and the nation if both work together in civility, honesty and friendship for the common good even where there are grave divisions, as there are on abortion.
But it does not improve the likelihood of making progress on this and other issues of common concern if we adopt the clenched fist approach. The president has given ample evidence that he is a man of good will, of keen intelligence, desirous of listening and capable of weighing seriously other views. The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, citing Augustine, points out that “ Certain situations cannot be resolved with asperity or hardness” and goes on to say “(B)ecause his daily pastoral concerns give the Bishop greater scope for personal decision-making, his scope for error is also greater, however good his intentions: this thought should encourage him to remain open to dialog with others, always ready to learn, to seek and accept the advice of others.”
Meanwhile, the president of the USCCB, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, has called the invite to Obama “an extreme embarassment” and adds: “Whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation.”
And Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of Saint Paul and Minneapolis released his letter to Jenkins, calling the invitation a “travesty” and adding if Jenkins doesn’t withdraw the invitation “please do not expect me to support your University in the future.”
So there.
PS: (Always a postscript to this story) Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL reflects on the controversy on his blog, with a sane take, I thought:
“Early ‘markers’ [of Obama's record on the life issues] are not encouraging in this regard but hope needs to spring eternal and while Notre Dame may have acted way too early and too generously, I am more alarmed that the rhetoric being employed is so uncivil and venomous that it weakens the case we place before our fellow citizens, alienates young college-age students who believe the older generation is behaving like an angry child and they do not wish to be any part of that, and ill-serves the cause of life. Notre Dame has in the past and continues to give this local Church fine, professional and very Catholic women and men who both know and live out their faith. Most of them I know are ardently pro-life and like myself are probably disappointed with their alma mater. They and I will choose to convey our sadness to the Board of Trustees and Administration in a calm and dignified manner.”
Hat tip to CWNews.
“…four-fifths of the Supreme Court”
Did you mean five-ninths?
Ahime’. Thanks John Henry. My math is as good as my grammar.
I don’t entirely agree with your assessment, David. I do agree that it was longer than it needed to be and rambled a bit. Overall, though, I found it to be an anguished cri de couer that reflected the real difficulties that so many of us face when thinking about these issues. The fact that the letter was complex and messy reflects the reality that our moral discernment in this area is also complex and messy. I feel Fr. Cleary’s pain.
It could have benefitted from editing, but to the extent it has also been released as an open letter, I agree with Peter that it reads like an “anguished cri de couer.” Fr. Claeary covers a lot of ground, and he makes many good points, but I couldn’t help laughing about two-thirds of the way through when he asks if he “may digress.” :)
One question: Will President Obama actually have time to work his way through it?
It’s hard for me to imagine that Fr. Cleary would have sent off this tortuous missive had he not been beseiged by the outrage in many missives himself.
While Bill and Peter and a number of others are sympathetic to him and sincere champions of right to life, I’m less than convinced that all the outraged acted out of non-political motives.
So we the “Amen” of Margaret’s thread will continue to hear the drumbeat from the right to life and consevative camps.
I still think this is another issue those folks have latched onto to “encourage” their members and (I hate to say this) run to authorities they hope will be sympathetic, like good children, to kep their cause front and center. Unfortunately, I think many may perceive just the opposite and find their “outrage” to be myopic.
Another question: Will President Obama WANT to work his (read his staff’s) way though it?
The White House should call UND and ask: do you want me there or not? If not, that’s no sweat off of my a**.
When I saw Father Cleary’s letter early this morning, I was struck by its repetitious prolixity. He makes points that need making and call for reflection. But I think his purpose would have been much more strongly achieved in a letter half the length. The “Welcome to Notre Dame” at the end seems to ring a little hollow after the twelve preceding pages. Now we have the letter of Archbishop Nienstedt of St. Paul-Minneapolis to Father Jenkins, in which the archbishop refers to President Obama as “such an anti-Catholic politician.”
I will not be surprised if in the coming weeks the White House finds an unforeseen scheduling problem for the president and that Professor Glendon is in the end both Laetare Medal honoree and commencement speaker.
Perhaps the heart of the letter is this:
“Therefore, through this open letter, I would like to take advantage of the occasion of your receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame, to ask you to rethink, through prayerful wrestling with your own conscience, your stated positions on the vital “life issues” of our day, particularly in regard to abortion, embryonic forms of stem cell research and your position on the Freedom of Choice Act before Congress.”
Everything that follows, from what I can tell, is in support of the Catholic position he asking the President to consider.
The point of the letter, to my reading, is an invitation to dialogue. Were the President to take it seriously and respond – then that would be a notable step forward.
Taking Jim’s point to its logical conclusion, perhaps the very point of the letter was to shape Obama’s graduation address; that is, prompt Obama to use his speech as serious reflection and response. If Obama’s invitation is an effort at dialogue, prompting an address that speaks to Catholic frustration with the current political climate serves that very purpose.
” . . . . and your position on the Freedom of Choice Act before Congress.”
The Freedom of Choice Act is not before Congress. It was introduced in the 110th Congress, but in order to be “before Congress,” it would have to be reintroduced in the 111th Congress. But of course, facts are not important in this debate.
” . . . that is, prompt Obama to use his speech as serious reflection and response.”
Do you really think it would be a good idea for Obama to argue his side of the case in the commencement address at Notre Dame? If pro-life Catholics were upset before, imagine what the reaction would be if Obama explains why he doesn’t accept Catholic doctrine on when life begins!
Obama should announce that he has a plan to cut abortions immediately by 30 percent in the United States — stop allowing Catholic women to obtain abortions.
Peter, I agree that it was a cri de coeur, and I sympathized with that, except that it got to be way too much coeur and not enough tete (sorry, can’t do the circonflex). A lot of people are upset, and that’s fine, even though I think much of the critcism is embarassingly and sometimes horrifyingly over the top too much of the time. I would have liked to see a bit more (well, a lot more) of a refelction from Fr. Cleary about the invitation, the role of a Catholic university, that kind of thing. He throws in so much trash that not only are you uncertain where he stands but he has splattered Obama with so much much that it makes his cheery “welcome!” all the more strange. And it gives aid and comfort to the crazies out there.
As for an invitation to dialogue, yes, I guess that’s there, but only a bit more than, say Benedict’s Regenberg sally was an “invitation to dialogue.” And I suspect in this case, if Obama does make it to South Bend, his response will embarass critics of him and Notre Dame as much as the Muslim scholars generous response to Regensberg did the pope. (Even if the pope has yet to comprehend that!)
If Obama doesn’t make it to South Bend, well…We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.
There’s just so much weirdness in the letter that obscures whatever Fr. Cleary was trying to say. He seems to criticize Obama for everything from the phantom FOCA act to Jeremiah Wright.
I do hope this is an opportunity for dialogue, and that we get some of that from Obama. Lord knows what he could possibly say, at this point, to respond to Fr. Cleary or others. In fact, after reading the letter I was thinking to myself, how do you respond? This is a letter to the President of the United States from a Catholic leader. And yet I wouldn’t know where to begin to craft a response.
This episode also raises the issue of what really constitutes a “letter.” It’s nice that these bishops and other folks are writing such heartfelt letters to Obama and Fr. Jenkins, but it seems to change the nature of a one-to-one correspondence when it is released for public consumption. That’s not so much an invitation to dialogue as a public challenge to a disputation. It also seems, as someone said above, that fr. Cleary is responding to a flood of angry emails. And it seems that’s all he’s read on the topic. That doesn’t seem to be the kind of 360-degree vision that the situation requires.
Basta. I feel bad for Fr. Jenkins, that’s for sure.
That’s not so much an invitation to dialogue as a public challenge to a disputation.
David Gibson,
How can there be an honest invitation to dialog from “pro-life” Catholics? What if Obama responded that he would be perfectly happy rethink, through prayerful wrestling with his own conscience, his stated positions on the vital “life issues” of our day, if his Catholic critics would do the same? Not only can’t there be dialog on the issues of abortion and stem-cell research, since the Catholic Church is certain it is right (and Obama is wrong) about these matters. There can’t even be dialog about how the law in a pluralistic democracy ought to deal with these matters, because the Catholic Church is certain it is right (and Obama is wrong) about that as well.
If we take the meaning of dialog to be “a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution,” there can be no dialog. The only possible resolution from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church is for Obama to adopt the Catholic position.
Of course, there can be an effort to find some common ground, which Obama has repeatedly said he would like to do, but the possible areas of common ground (trying to reduce the number of abortions through social programs) are often denounced by pro-life Catholics (and others) as distractions from the ultimate aim of the pro-life movement — to criminalize abortion.
I thought during the election that the Pro-life Movement was going down in flames. They are convincing no one but themselves that they have a winning strategy, and they are steadily alienating pro-life Catholics and pro-life others who want to reduce abortions–and even restrict their availability, but who see little short-term likelihood that R v. W is going to be overturned, even by the most conservative Supreme Court in over fifty years. Terry Randall has upped the ante. And presumably other fanatics are working on it.
The sturm and drang over Obama setting foot on “Our Lady’s Campus” to receive a piece of paper (and hey guys, that’s all it is–I know I have several–talk about nominalism [cf, William of Ockham]), and make a speech that would probably sound pretty familiar to most Catholics has reached utterly hysterical proportions–though, as this thread and others demonstrate, mostly from men. Now I wonder, is it possible the P-L Movement is going to take UND with them–down in flames.
Sober Up!
I think that Obama will offer some type of compromise– not that he should nor should Notre Dame. He wants some type of win-win with the bishops. He is a far more gracious, smarter, and principled man than most of them, I think, and it will appear to some that these prelates get some concessions. I think that whole episode is another mini-tragedy for the American church and continues to show the dearth of leadership. Archbishop Quinn is the only one with some insight. The bishops will score at best a Pyrhhic victory and, meanwhile, the church continues its drift…. with fewer and fewer on the barque,,,and “captains” that have lost all bearings…
Therewas a theology professor who used to say: “It is not christian but it is sacerdotal!”
I would like to say about the Notre-Dame controversy:”It must be “catholic” but it is not christian!”
Thanks for the link to Archbishop Quinn’s article, and cheers to America for printing it. He looks at the situation wisely and prudently, considering likely outcomes on various fronts. Would that we had more Bishops like him.
“If we take the meaning of dialog to be “a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution,” there can be no dialog. The only possible resolution from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church is for Obama to adopt the Catholic position. ”
Hi, David N., even when the situation is as you suggest – two diametrically opposed parties in conflict – dialogue should still be pursued. C.f. any mgmt/labor conflict.
In this case, though, the relationship between the dialogue partners is a little different. The Church enunciates first principles; the President (in this case operating from a different set of first principles) must apply principles in a very practical way. I would think that could hold the promise for some serious engagement, if the parties are willing and interested.
A/B John R Quinn is a clear voice from the West. unencumbered from having to please. . His analyasis of the effects of a forced withdrawl of the invitation was lacking in all the harsh negativity..is our mission in this society to score points or change hearts?
Hi, David N., even when the situation is as you suggest – two diametrically opposed parties in conflict – dialogue should still be pursued. C.f. any mgmt/labor conflict.
Jim,
You must be management. :-) I forget the percentage, but in most contract negotiations between companies and their unions, an agreement is reached without a strike. As a former union member, and now a manager in the same company where I was a union member, I would not say management and labor are diametrically opposed.
It seems to me that if the Church confined itself to enunciating first principles, dialog would be possible. The principle would be that an abortion is the taking of a human life (or maybe even the unjust taking of an innocent human life). But the Church goes farther than that in insisting that abortion must be against the law. It seems to me that what is and is not legal in a pluralistic democracy is not a question for the Church to decide, but they have decided already. So I don’t see how dialog (in the sense of reaching an agreement) is possible. But certainly there can be an attempt to find common ground. If you call that dialog, then dialog is possible. But as I said, there are many who denounce the idea even of searching for common ground.
Re: Cardinal George: here is a snippet of his comments from the pro-life conference at which he used the term “extreme embarrassment”, as reported on the lifesite news:
[Begin quoted portion]
George said he had spoken with the administrative committee of the bishops’ conference and corresponded with University president Fr. John Jenkins several times on the issue.
“That conversation will continue …. whether or not it will have some kind of consequence that will bring, I think, the University of Notre Dame to its [the USCCB's] understanding of what it means to be Catholic,” said the Cardinal. “That is, when you’re Catholic, everything you do changes the life of everybody else who calls himself a personal Catholic – it’s a network of relationships.
“So quite apart from the president’s own positions, which are well known, the problem is in that you have a Catholic university – the flagship Catholic university – do something that brought extreme embarrassment to many, many people who are Catholic,” said the cardinal.
“So whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation, and didn’t anticipate the kind of uproar that would be consequent to the decision, at least not to the extent that it has happened,” said George.
The Cardinal urged concerned Catholics “to do what you are supposed to be doing: to call, to email, to write letters, to express what’s in your heart about this: the embarrassment, the difficulties.”
However, Cardinal George emphasized that the U.S. presidency “is an office that deserves some respect, no matter who is holding it,” and said that Notre Dame would not disinvite the president, since “you just don’t do that (disinvite the president of the United States).” According to the cardinal requests to revoke the invitation would fall on deaf ears, but he also observed that there is legitimate potential to organize some form of protest at the ceremony.
“You have to sit back and get past the immediate moral outrage and say, ‘Now what’s the best thing to do in these circumstances?’” said the Cardinal.
“I can assure you the bishops are doing that.”
[End quoted portion]
It seems that the aspect on which Cardinal George is commenting is not so much the invitation itself, as Notre Dame’s fidelity or lack thereof to the will of the bishops, presumably as expressed in “Catholics in Political Life” – at least, that’s my take on what he means by “Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic”.
It’s not clear which “president” – Obama or Jenkins – he’s referring to as one whose opinions are well-known.
It’s good to see the Cardinal acknowledge that the toothpaste is now out of the tube – the invitation can’t and won’t be rescinded.
I continue to hope that some good may come of the President’s appearance.
Cardinal George mentions ‘embarrassment’ a number of times as an emotion felt by many, many Catholics … anger, surprise , pride, diappointment maybe … however ‘extreme embarrassment’ does not compute for me…I say here is a lack of sence of what the issue brings up. Maybe embarrassment is felt by bishops who feeled obliged to speak out but with to rank and file Catholics where is felt the ‘embarrassment’ ?
Thought we needed to take a break and interject some levity here (following up on Ms. Steinfels “Sober Up!”):
April 1st – Fools Day – link to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/the-history-of-april-fool_n_180097.html?alacarte=1
Example: Nixon’s Second Term
In 1992, National Public Radio’s “Talk of the Nation” announced that Richard Nixon was running for a second term as president with the slogan, “I didn’t do anything wrong, and I won’t do it again.”
Listeners were fooled and called in in droves. Later in the show, the host revealed it was a joke and that Nixon’s voice was impersonated by comedian Rich Little.
Wonder if Francis Cardinal George (he of the “liberal catholicism is dead” pseudo-theological discourse and FOCA is the greatest threat (not even on the radar screen of this congress); Daniel Cardinal DiNardo (why is Houston concerned?); Bishop Olmsted (Phoenix is a ND alumuni Hotbed, I guess); both Oklahoma bishops, etc. are really just an April Day Fool’s Day joke and someone will wake us up and tell us all that it is really just a prank?
Jim – just trying to save you from tying yourself in knots attempting to explain and defend your illustrious cardinal (the same one who seems unable to apply the Dallas Chapter rules to his handling of current abuse cases but he is extremely embarrassed about ND inviting the President).
Suggestion – 3 months from now this will all be forgotten.
C’mon, Bill, read your Commonweal back issues, Cardinal George didn’t say liberal Catholicism was dead, he said it was a parasite feeding on a church that hasn’t existed for decades, or some such.
And, while I’m second to no one in tying myself in knots defending Cardinal George when the occasion calls for it, in this case I am merely highlighting his comments because they are of interest in their own right.
3 months? Surely, you jest ….. 3 weeks at most.
From today’s America blogsite:
Stop Disrespecting Our President!
Posted at: 2009-04-01 09:49:43.0
Author: Michael Sean Winters
Cardinal Francis George has now entered the fray regarding Notre Dame’s invitation to President Barack Obama to deliver the commencement address this year. A total of nine bishops have issued statements on the matter, which have sadly come precariously close to disrespecting the President and more than amply shown how out of touch the bishops are with the culture in which they live.
Cardinal George said, according to the Catholic News Service headline that “‘Notre Dame didn’t understand what it meant to be Catholic’ When They Invited Obama.” Note the quotation marks. The Cardinal was making the point that when you are Catholic, what you do affects everyone else in the Church, and that the outcry over the invitation should have been anticipated by Notre Dame, that the sensus fidelium should have told them that inviting Obama would cause a scandal and that Catholics have an obligation not to cause scandal one to another.
Fair enough, but the loudness of a protest has nothing to do with its veracity or, in this instance, its coherence with the sensus fidelium. Most Catholics are, I suspect, proud that their President is coming to a Catholic university, that the visit is an honor.
Cardinal George might also have noted that the controversy may be boiling in the Catholic world, but it barely merits a mention in the mainstream culture. Smart, informed people I know look quizzically and say, “Oh, what’s that?” when I tell them I have been writing a lot about the Notre Dame controversy. Indeed, historians may sadly look back on this episode as the beginning of a re-ghettoization of the American Catholic Church.
Let’s be clear. That is what the critics want. They do not want to give a platform to anyone who disagrees with them. They say that abortion is the only issue that warrants such a hardened stance because it is an intrinsic evil, but the last time I checked, using artificial birth control is also considered an intrinsic evil. They do not want students at a university – of all places – exposed to ideas that are different from theirs. They are Catholic fundamentalists with a brittle and cramped notion of Catholic identity. Sadly, the bishops appear to be listening to them.
Let us also be clear that the pro-life movement has been unable to change the culture in the past thirty years on this issue. They have not only failed to change the laws, they have failed to find ways to lower the abortion rate. And, like their pro-choice counterparts, they are suspicious of efforts to reduce the abortion rate not because they will fail but because they fear they will work and deny both extremes their funding and their raison d’etre.
Cardinal George said that he intended no disrespect for the President. Cardinal DiNardo and Bishop D’Arcy also said they had great respect for the President. Yet, all three persist in calling him “pro-abortion.” President Obama does not refer to himself that way and would argue the point that there is a distinction between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice. That may be a distinction without a difference, but it requires an argument, not an assertion. More disturbing is the failure on the part of these moral and religious leaders to recognize what respect entails. If anything, it means referring to someone as they refer to themselves. I do not think a bishop would call Mr. Obama a “negro” and if they did it would be considered rude, even though that is precisely how Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle would have referred to Obama at his birth in the early 1960s. Why? Because black Americans do not refer to themselves that way anymore. The bishops need to stop referring to Obama as “pro-abortion.” It is disrespectful.
I confess, however, that I fear the American hierarchy is unaware how irrelevant they are becoming to the culture they wish to change. An ABC poll released yesterday showed Obama’s approval rating at 66 percent. The Church can never compromise an essential tenet of its faith, of course, no matter what the polls say. But, the idea that Notre Dame’s decision to invite the President of the United States is a “moral outrage” only shows that our bishops are once again out-of-touch with their flock and ineffectual at persuading their culture. It is very sad.
This from Paul Fussel on chicken**** and the military seems appropriate:
Chicken**** refers to behavior that makes military life worse than it need be: petty harassment of the weak by the strong; open scrimmage for power and authority and prestige… insistence on the letter rather than the spirit of ordinances. Chicken**** is so called — instead of horse — or bull — or elephant **** — because it is small-minded and ignoble and takes the trivial seriously. Chicken**** can be recognized instantly because it never has anything to do with winning the war.
I’ve expurgated the quote to avoid offending the more delicate sensibilities of those who read this blog.
“But, the idea that Notre Dame’s decision to invite the President of the United States is a “moral outrage” only shows that our bishops are once again out-of-touch with their flock and ineffectual at persuading their culture. It is very sad.”
Yup.