What kind of witness?
I’ve been reflecting on the controversy over Notre Dame’s decision to invite President Obama to speak at commencement this year. The decision has re-opened wounds within the Catholic community from the last election that have barely started to heal.
As the veteran of a number of battles over campus speakers during my undergraduate years, I’ve come to believe that efforts to prevent invited speakers from speaking do more harm than good. They inevitably shift the focus from the issue at hand to the issue of free speech, one’s willingness to engage in dialogue, and other virtues that both liberal societies in general-and universities in particular-rightly value.
I feel compelled to add that I am somewhat weary of organizations and individuals-whether on the Left or on the Right-who specialize in the “outrage” business. It reminds me of my children, who tend to pop up so many times after bedtime that I am no longer inclined to take their reasons seriously. Every time I hear the latest expression of outrage, I want to say to these folks what I say to my kids: “is this really an emergency?”
Having said that, I find that I am nevertheless conflicted about Notre Dame’s decision. Part of this is that I am finding the arguments for inviting President Obama somewhat weak.
Yes, he is the President and, yes, Notre Dame has invited a number of past presidents. Are we certain that this is necessarily a good thing? There was a time, of course, when Catholics were on the outside looking in at mainstream American society. The fact that Notre Dame could entice a president to speak was a mark that we had arrived and were part of the mainstream. Is that the message we want to send? That the nation’s leading Catholic university has “bagged another one,” so to speak? Is our ability to attract the attention of the powerful a mark of our success as followers of Jesus Christ?
Let’s not kid ourselves. There is a reason that President Obama accepted this invitation and turned down the hundreds of others that he surely received. It has little to do with how wonderful Notre Dame is. It has a lot to do with the desire of the president to convey that at least some portion of the Catholic community is “okay” with him. I don’t blame him for this and it doesn’t particularly upset me. This is what politicians do. The question is how comfortable we are with this.
I raise the question, but in my own mind I don’t have a clear answer. I was “okay” enough with Obama to support him last year, given the choices I had. I even put a bumper sticker on my car. His broad vision has always inspired me and sometimes even moved me to tears. He was my surgeon of choice to cut out the cancer that the previous administration had become. But it was always a “two-and-a-half cheers” kind of thing. I couldn’t forget–and didn’t want to forget–that there was an entire class of human beings that were outside his circle of moral concern.
There is a difference between a hiring decision–which is what I think a choice for president is–and holding someone up as a person to be emulated. When I think of the kind of commencement speaker I’d want students at a Catholic university to hear from, I’d be looking for someone a bit different. I’d want someone who could offer a critique of the ways that our political system forces us to choose between, say, victims of torture and victims of abortion. I’d be looking for someone willing to look those graduates in the eye and tell them that it was their job to change that system, not merely to find an accommodation with it. For all his many gifts and skills, and for all the leadership he has brought to our country at a difficult time, President Obama is not that person.
on March 31st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Mr Nixon: You put into words many of the same conflicted feelings I have over this invitation. Still, Obama is not Catholic and while I would like to see him direct more of his keen intellect in pursuit of a better moral framework on these life issues, the fact is, Obama is a politician and the public is equally conflicted (even us Catholics) see:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
In fairness to him regarding the particular issue of ND’s invitation:
1. Is there not an implicit balancing in this particular speaking venue withthe addition of Mary Ann Glendon. Will she not address the concern to speak to graduates as to working towards a resolution to these issues as opposed to avoiding them.
2. I would find the brouhaha that has erupted over this among certain Catholic prelates and concerned faithful if they were as insistent in their letter, blog and public speaking pronunciations if they were as vocal about past presidential lapses in moral consideration (i.e. It is hard not to read into George W. Bush’s dealing with the Catholic community as just another politician using the hot button issues of the day to pander to a certain voting niche. Where is the Catholic outrage to using the powers of our government to torture or in the widening gap between those who have and those who don’t)
3. Barack Obama offers to a very large but select group of men a wonderful picture. It is a picture that speaks more loudly than any words or opinions “above his pay grade”. I speak of the fact that according to Guttmacher, a significant percentage of abortion occurs among the African American community. Further, the African American community is singular in the percentage of women who raise children in single parent homes and who’s males are incarcerated. Obama stands as a picture to all of a man who has married and is in love with his wife and two daughters, who is an active parent in that family constellation and who is willing to call all of us, including young African Americans to a greater responsibility in family, parenting, education and contributing to society. This, in itself, seems to me to be reason to ask him to speak as President of the United States, the first African American President, to Notre Dame graduates.
on March 31st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Let me try to say this without sounding too sarcastic. Obama is good enough to be “hired” as president of the United States, but you don’t want him talking to the youngsters?
How many people are there that are worthy of being emulated totally? One of the people I admired when I was young was Dr. Tom Dooley. It turns out he was a deeply flawed person (but still admirable, in my opinion)? Certainly if JFK were to come back from the dead, he would be an unacceptable commencement speaker. You don’t want someone who was notoriously unfaithful to his wife held up as a person to emulate.
Certainly there is plenty about Obama that is worthy of emulation. I am sure he has a thing or two worthwhile to say to the graduates of Notre Dame. If they have not picked up Catholic values during their four years at Notre Dame, it’s doubtful if having the pope himself as a commencement speaker would make them any better people.
It was interesting to watch Catholics tying themselves in knots over whether or not they had a sufficiently proportionate reason to engage in remote material cooperation with intrinsic evil by voting for Obama. At least it made a significant difference who got elected president. But all this anguish over whether Obama is worthy to give the commencement speech at Notre Dame is beginning to seem foolish.
on March 31st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Enough with the hyperventiliating!
on March 31st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Peter, I think another question that comes to mind is whether Catholic universities should invite any political leaders. I think all would fall short by some measure. I also don’t understand the alacrity with which many presume the worst motives of Obama, and Father Jenkins and Notre Dame, and yet not of the bishops and church leaders who have protested. Are they not political animals with base instintcs and motives? Why should we presume they are speaking from virtue, except for the fact that they might enunciate the ambivalence we feel? Or would it not be better to presume the best of all involved, at least until evidence to the contrary emerges?
on March 31st, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Just one quibble while I digest this larger, thoughtful post: I am not sure if this past election boiled down to a choice between torture vs. abortion. I know McCain pulled back on the one bill last year, but his criticism of torture was pretty unequivocal especially given those on the right who seemed to make torture the sine qua non of being conservative (see for instance here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWEyMDgxMWJlZmYxN2M1MGQ1ZDUxNjcxNmE5MmRmOGE).
on March 31st, 2009 at 7:34 pm
BTW, Peter et al, check out the updates on the ND post below, esp the contributiuons from Archbp Quinn and Bp Lynch.
on March 31st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Mr. Nixon: This will probably not come across the way I mean it, but I was very pleasantly surprised to find on this blog such a balanced sentiment from someone who is obviously on the other side of the fence from me politically. It’s heartening to see that a liberal can write honestly from first principles, rather than merely hold to the party line. It almost makes me feel like I should say something critical about George W. Bush (I’m trying, but nothing immediately springs to mind). Perhaps to some people that’s hyperventilating, but I found it a breath of fresh air.
Mr. Nickol: Let me say this without trying to sound too sarcastic: You don’t want someone who was notoriously unfaithful to his wife held up as a person to emulate, but you’re just fine with someone who has, at every turn, fought for legislation enabling the destruction of innocent human life?
on March 31st, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Abortion is the only issue that the church challenges politicians on. On that basis alone Catholics should challenge the bishops to get more genuine. Take away this issue and the bishops are baron, empty and naked. That should tell us something. Sure you can read the UCCB statement and find social teachings. But you have to search for it. But it is like a big wink. We state it but don’t worry about it. For sure the bishops do not challenge the politicians on greed, exploitation and the like. How could they when the money was used to build hundred million plus cathedrals et alii.
There is a huge disconnect here and we are allowing it to happen.
on March 31st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
It’s heartening to see that a liberal can write honestly from first principles, rather than merely hold to the party line.
So much for fresh air! Come on, Mark.
Peter — I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about what actually makes for a good, or appropriate, commencement speaker. It seems like it ought to be something more than “the most famous/prestigious/powerful person who will say yes.” And ideally it would have a relationship with the mission or identity of the school. I think the whole system could use some revision… But that’s another discussion, and probably not one that can be conducted while this “debate” is generating so much noise.
on March 31st, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Mrs. Steinfels was my commencement speaker. I think she would meet Mr. Nixon’s criteria for the witness we need for our young people.
Regrettably, I was hung over and tired, and I only recall her saying something like, whatever faith it is that you have, keep the faith!
on March 31st, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Probably a stupid question/I apologize: What was the Catholic reaction to Bill Clinton as a pro-choice president? I don’t recall anything like this savaging of Obama, but I was away from the Church during most of those years. How did the bishops handle him and his speaking engagements?
on March 31st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Peter, a very thoughtful post. You were able to put your finger on a kind of disquiet I have had since first learning that ND had invited the president to speak. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I can’t imagine that Fr Jenkins was completely blindsided by the reaction to this invitation. Surely he must have expected an outcry from the usual suspects in the church. So the question is why did he do it? There were/are plenty of other worthy candidates for this honor, many of whom would not raise any eyebrows but who could still speak very effectively to the graduates about their role in the church and society.
I understand that it is a tradition at ND to have a sitting president address the graduates. But did it have to be this year? We have just come off of a brutal election season, followed by all that FOCA nonsense. Did Jenkins have to make such a provocative move at just this point? Or is it, as Peter suggests, a way of showing the world just how prestigious Notre Dame is?
While I am very unhappy with the way most of the protesting bishops, etc., have voiced their disagreement with the decision, I can in some ways sympathize with them. No, I don’t think that Fr. Jenkins is being “disobedient” to the bishops. And neither do I think that Barack Obama is a cpnniving socialist or a hater of unborn babies. But do we really need this controversy right now? Is it really in the best interests of American Catholicism to provoke yet another shouting match within the church?
on March 31st, 2009 at 10:54 pm
There is a difference between a hiring decision–which is what I think a choice for president is–and holding someone up as a person to be emulated.
Let’s see — the member of a minority group and the child of a single parent who earns his way into top schools and attains the highest office in the land by dint of his own talent, and you say he’s not someone worthy of emulation. How can one take such an argument seriously?
Besides, this is not a high school graduation. Presumably, in the space of four years Notre Dame has been able to equip young adults with critical thinking skills, who can therefore be trusted to employ these skills apropriately.
on April 1st, 2009 at 9:04 am
Peter-
Thanks for yet another thoughtful post. Your comments reflect much of what I have thought about the invitation of our President to ND. I too feel very conflicted with this–of two minds, if you will. It is a reason I won’t sign any of the on-line petitions for or against this invitation. Maybe there are a lot of people like you and me out there?
Thanks,
Anthony
on April 1st, 2009 at 9:17 am
. . . . you’re just fine with someone who has, at every turn, fought for legislation enabling the destruction of innocent human life?
Mark,
I am interested in discussing whether Obama is appropriate as a commencement speaker at Notre Dame, not whether he is unfit to live.
on April 1st, 2009 at 9:35 am
Forgive me for thinking this piece was a bit histrionic. Two sentences stood out:
I couldn’t forget–and didn’t want to forget–that there was an entire class of human beings that were outside his circle of moral concern.
I’d want someone who could offer a critique of the ways that our political system forces us to choose between, say, victims of torture and victims of abortion.
The first is inaccurate based on anything I’ve ever heard Obama say about the subject. It’s more like, he believes that there is a class of personal decision making that, for the most part, belongs outside the control of the state. Those who think that moral concern mandates state interdiction have a vested interest in trying to establish the truth of the obverse, that opposition to state interdiction equals lack of moral concern. But it isn’t true, and Obama has articulated this position time and again. I have yet to hear a rejoinder that addresses exactly this point.
And the second statement, victims of torture/abortion is almost the flipside of the same coin. Torture is something the state does to you under compulsion. Abortion is the result of individual decisions that are not compelled (and indeed, that are often discouraged) by the state.
The issue is how the pieces, individual, state, and morality, fit together in a democratic and pluralistic society. I think Obama would likely be able to give a first rate articulation of his views.
on April 1st, 2009 at 10:24 am
Let’s see — the member of a minority group and the child of a single parent who earns his way into top schools and attains the highest office in the land by dint of his own talent, and you say he’s not someone worthy of emulation. How can one take such an argument seriously?
Perhaps by realizing that material success and power aren’t necessarily the only criteria for bestowing moral admiration.
on April 1st, 2009 at 11:22 am
Barbara
You say, “It’s more like, he believes that there is a class of personal decision making that, for the most part, belongs outside the control of the state. Those who think that moral concern mandates state interdiction have a vested interest in trying to establish the truth of the obverse, that opposition to state interdiction equals lack of moral concern. But it isn’t true, and Obama has articulated this position time and again. I have yet to hear a rejoinder that addresses exactly this point.”
To even pose this question, you must first posit that there is only one person involved in the decision. If the basis for one’s moral opposition to abortion is that it involves the taking of innocent life, one can’t simply say it is a “class of personal decision” in which the state or anyone else has a right to interfere any more than you could say a man’s decision to have sex with a woman against her will is his personal decision in which the state can’t interfere. The president wants the state to now control more aspects of people’s personal and economic lives than ever before, but it has no right or duty to protect innocent life? How does that work?
On this whole ND issue, I ask myself, what reaction if the ACLU executive board decided to invite Alberto Gonzalez to the annual meeting to give the keynopte address and recieve an award? I’d be curious to here the reaction to that. I wonder if we would here discussion about dialogue, promoting ideas, and defending free speech then. I somehow doubt it.
on April 1st, 2009 at 11:33 am
The seriousness and solemnity with which this non-issue is being discussed strike me as some sort of elaborate April Fool’s joke.
Given the wilful distortion and innuendo around Obama’s position on abortion, I guess all this talk of finding common ground with those who don’t subscribe to the complete pro-life agenda was simply empty rhetoric.
on April 1st, 2009 at 11:34 am
I continue to appreciate Mrs. Steinfels” “Amen” to all this.
I respect your posture, Peter, but I also think you should save some of your critique til you’v eactually heard the commencemen taddress.
on April 1st, 2009 at 11:53 am
Mr. Nixon:
Thanks for this post. It’s becauses of posts like this that I–a politically conservative, very traditional Catholic–check dotCommonweal multiple times a day.
on April 1st, 2009 at 11:53 am
No, Sean, you don’t. You just have to recognize that to one degree or another the extent to which you invest a fetus with separate personhood is a reflection of theological or philosophical and not just scientific constructs, and how you weigh those constructs in relation to other values — like liberty and autonomy. In other words, you have to be open to the possibility that other people can reasonably disagree with your beliefs and the importance you attach to competing values.
on April 1st, 2009 at 11:56 am
Speech by Obama faces Catholic foes in Oklahoma
OKLAHOMA ARCHBISHOP, BISHOP WEIGH IN ON NOTRE DAME INVITE
on April 1st, 2009 at 11:57 am
Sean Hannaway: In all seriousness, why would we (the general public, or the readers of this blog) care much one way or the other whom the ACLU invites to their annual meeting? Do they have an annual meeting? Is it their tradition to invite a prominent speaker from outside the organization to give a keynote address? I have no idea, which is part of the reason that analogy strikes me as less than illuminating.
However, if the ACLU did have such a well-known and longstanding tradition, and they did decide to invite Gonzales, I know it wouldn’t concern me, even for a moment, that the invitation might be interpreted as signaling the ACLU’s stamp of approval on any and all of Gonzales’s actions and beliefs… The ACLU’s objections to at least some of his decisions and positions being so well known. I would be intrigued to know why they thought he might have something to say that was worth their hearing, in spite of their obvious differences, but I wouldn’t be confused about their principles or his standing in light of the invitation. So, in that sense, perhaps your thought experiment is helpful after all.
on April 1st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I’m a bit surprised by how vocal opponents of the invitation have been. My first impression was that the invite was completely non-controversial. It’s about as startling as Bush speaking at Bob Jones University. Most people on the right who are opposed to this gesture know that Notre Dame hasn’t been Notre Dame for some time.
on April 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
If the basis for one’s moral opposition to abortion is that it involves the taking of innocent life . . . .
Sean,
Of course, that is one of the major questions under dispute, and if there was agreement on it, the abortion issue might be easier to resolve. But as Cathy Kaveny has pointed out, there are arguments that justify abortion even if the assumption is made that it is the taking of a human life (the “violinist argument”). And at least according to a post on Vox Nova, European approaches do depend on denying that abortion is taking a life:
I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this account of Mary Ann Glendon’s book, but Cathy Kaveny has recommended it several times, and with Glendon’s upcoming appearance at Notre Dame, now is a good time to read it (Abortion and Divorce in Western Law).
on April 1st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
David–
I’m not familiar with the “violinist argument” justifying the intentional destruction of innocent human life. Sounds to me like it may require some fine tuning. Nevertheless, if you can point me to it, I’d like to read about it.
on April 1st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Thank you for this.
I am also in the camp of those who don’t want to march up to UND with pitchforks to protest this, but has found the response to the protests somewhat lacking and unpersuasive.
I think the wounds that haven’t healed go back all the way to the 2004 elections. I think many prograssive Catholics feel that the more conservative bishops and elements of the Church threw the election to Bush with talk of denying communtion and “non-negotiable” issues.
Now, it’s payback time.
on April 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Mark,
Here’s one description of the“violinist thought experiment, but if you just google “abortion” and “violinist,” you will get many descriptions and analyses.
on April 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Had never heard of the “violinist argument” before. Brrrrrrrr.
on April 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Jim–
As David said, it’s easy to find on Wikipedia. I can understand why the violinist argument has never gained traction–it’s logically equivalent to the argument that two wrongs make a right. We learn the fallacy of that argument from our parents, at a very young age.
on April 1st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Just for the record, I have always found the violinist argument to be stupid and heavily freighted with the cultural predilections of those making it.
on April 1st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Take the question of who would you want to be with you in a foxhole? Obama or the bishops? Obama or the right to life people?”
A very good argument can be made that Obama is closer to the gospel than many anti-abortionists.
on April 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I think it would be useful to start a new thread in which an attempt is made to articulate in precise terms what one’s vision is regarding legal restrictions on abortion. No fair merely citing repeal of Roe v Wade either.
Perhaps then we can begin a more productive discussion on the limits of the legal system to enforce a particular moral view of this issue.
on April 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Actually, if I were in a foxhole, I wouldn’t want to be with the bishops or Obama–I’d wanna be there with a soldier.
on April 1st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I wanted to comment on Stuart Buck’s remark:
“Let’s see — the member of a minority group and the child of a single parent who earns his way into top schools and attains the highest office in the land by dint of his own talent, and you say he’s not someone worthy of emulation. How can one take such an argument seriously?”
(Antonio Manetti).
(Stuart Buck’s remark)
“Perhaps by realizing that material success and power aren’t necessarily the only criteria for bestowing moral admiration.”
I may be wrong here (but I don’t think so), the comments made on this website are made mostly by Whites—and many by White Catholics. Nobody here is discussing the issues that Blacks have with and about Obama. We keep forgetting that Obama was elected by Americans—many of whom are Black. What did Blacks (especially young Blacks) see in Obama? They saw someone that they could be PROUD about, someone who was articulate, educated, someone who had achieved material success and power that few of them could ever hope to achieve.
Mr. Buck—maybe YOU don’t think that the story of Obama is a motivating, inspiring, hope-filled message—–but until you work with kids from the inner city—-you are missing the point. The fact is many of Notre Dame’s students may or may not be members of minority races—–but many of them were raised by one parent, and many of them had to work hard to get into Notre Dame—their parent didn’t have the material clout—-but by dint of hard work–the kids got in and stayed in, and are now graduating. They can connect with President Obama more readily than with McCain (had he been elected).
And for Black kids—-the election of President Obama— is a powerful, and tremendous motivation for them to achieve, to succeed—-more than from any other candidate that we could have had. For most Blacks—Obama HAS THEIR UTMOST MORAL ADMIRATION (believe me).
on April 1st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
First of all, I want to extend my appreciation for all the comments. The views expressed have been strong, but the discussion has been largely civil and I’d like to keep it that way. While I appreciate all the comments, there are three issues in particular that I’d like to address.
The first is David’s comment that I should presume more charity with respect to the motivations of both Notre Dame and President Obama. I take this comment seriously, because I generally do try to presume charity. I don’t think the motivations of anyone in this process are “base.” It is certainly not base to want the president of the United States to speak at your university’s commencement ceremony. It’s a natural desire. But does that necessarily make it a “good” desire? Similarly, I don’t think there is anything wrong with President Obama accepting the invitation. But to presume that political considerations play no part in the decisions of elected officials is, I think, to go beyond what charity requires.
Secondly, I want to clarify my comments about whether Obama is a model for emulation. In retrospect, I regret my word choice because it did not convey precisely what I mean. There is no question that there are many, many ways in which President Obama is a man to be emulated. However, on the particular issue that has been convulsing the Catholic community for several months—i.e., how we engage in the political process when both parties fall seriously short of our understanding of the common good—I have doubts on whether the President will be able to provide the kind of guidance that we need.
Thirdly, I want to address Barbara’s concern that I have misstated the President’s views on the morality of abortion. I tried to chose my words with care here. Obama has certainly been clear that he thinks abortion is a moral issue. What is less clear is what kind of moral issue he thinks it is. I think a fair reading of his views is that he sees abortion as a tragedy that should be avoided if possible and that he respects—even if he disagrees with—people with strong pro-life convictions. But I don’t see any evidence that he sees abortion as the taking of human life. That is what I meant when I said that there is a class of human beings outside his circle of moral concern. He doesn’t see the unborn as having the same moral claim on us as other human beings. To be fair, an extremely large number of Americans share his views, particularly when we are talking about life at its very early stages (i.e. the embryonic stem cell issue).
Finally, as a general comment, let me make clear (if it wasn’t clear before) that I do not believe that Notre Dame should retract its invitation nor should the President withdraw. But I do think this is an opportunity for additional discernment about these issues.
on April 1st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Well, “Little Bear,” let’s see if we can clarify the issues a bit.
I’m quite glad if Obama’s academic and professional life is seen as worthy of “emulation” in some respects, particularly if it can change the unfortunate perception in some quarters that academic success is “acting white.”
But that’s not the type of emulation that Mr. Nixon was talking about; I think he was referring to Obama’s views on certain moral issues that have been discussed above, ones that a faithful Catholic would not consider worth of “emulation.” And I was merely responding to Mr. Manetti’s complete non sequitur, i.e., his intimation that because Obama has been successful in the pursuit of political power, there’s no “serious” reason for a faithful Catholic to object to his moral views.
on April 1st, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“Most people on the right who are opposed to this gesture know that Notre Dame hasn’t been Notre Dame for some time.”
Adeodatus, as someone on “the right” myself, I have to disagree with you. Notre Dame is not Georgetown. Notre Dame IS important and has a student body which is over 80% Catholic and I think to deny that reality and her mission is a mistake. To quote Richard Garnett: “…Notre Dame matters, and it is precisely because it still is meaningfully Catholic that its mistakes are disappointing…We should want, and be willing to help, her to succeed.”
on April 1st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Litte Bear:
One would think that all that goes without saying. In the current acrimonious climate, it appears that’s not the case. If you’re not in lock step with the pro-life crowd, it doesn’t matter who you are or what your views on other matters might be.
If John McCain had been elected, he would have continued to pursue the Iraq policies that have been widely criticized by many, including the pope. Nonetheless, I believe inviting McCain to speak at the ND commencement would not have drawn fire from the prelates and many of the laity who are now condemning the invitation to Obama.
on April 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
“Posted by Antonio Manetti
on April 1st, 2009 at 11:33 am
“Given the wilful distortion and innuendo around Obama’s position on abortion, I guess all this talk of finding common ground with those who don’t subscribe to the complete pro-life agenda was simply empty rhetoric”.
I am curious to learn what is “the complete pro-life agenda”.
For an idea of Mr. Obama’s position on abortion, I believe that one should adopt the old-fashioned, conservative, traditional position: “Look at what he does, not at what he says”.
We must remember that Mr. Obama is a politician. And nothing more than a politician, as his career demonstrates. Ipse dixit: “That’s above my pay grade”. .
on April 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
“If John McCain had been elected, he would have continued to pursue the Iraq policies that have been widely criticized by many, including the pope. Nonetheless, I believe inviting McCain to speak at the ND commencement would not have drawn fire from the prelates and many of the laity who are now condemning the invitation to Obama.”
The reason why the invitation would potentially “not have drawn fire” is because your understanding of his proposed policies with regards to OIF is misinformed. Without belaboring the point, it is sufficient to say the Senator’s proposed policy regarding OIF is identical in all material respects to the 2009 commencement speaker’s.
on April 1st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
MAT, I am conservative myself. My knowledge of Notre Dame comes solely from my experience with the output of their theology department, as I was a student at another liberal Catholic institution. I agree that Notre Dame isn’t as far gone as Georgetown. But I do think Notre Dame is a lost cause.
on April 1st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Peter, your reasoning is circular.
on April 1st, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Right after the election, Peggy noted that the Bishops were the big losers and Peter G wondered whether the bishops would develop a new political strategy. They found one, however badly, in this event.
Their defeat here along with their speech writers will be just as riveting.
They are quickly heading to irrelevance except to the invested few.
on April 1st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
But I don’t see any evidence that he sees abortion as the taking of human life. That is what I meant when I said that there is a class of human beings outside his circle of moral concern. He doesn’t see the unborn as having the same moral claim on us as other human beings. To be fair, an extremely large number of Americans share his views, particularly when we are talking about life at its very early stages (i.e. the embryonic stem cell issue).
Peter,
Even when abortion was prohibited in the United States, it was never the legal equivalent of murder. The legal ramifications of claiming that life (personhood) begins at conception go well beyond the issue of abortion. Even many (most?) politicians who are strongly opposed to abortion — including some who even claim that the right to life begins at conception — do not in practice accept the legal and moral ramifications of their stated position.
Only a handful of politicians would rule out abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a true threat to the life of the mother. Pro-life politicians like John McCain and Orrin Hatch support embryonic stem-cell research. How many pro-life politicians have advocated strict controls on fertility clinics, which create the “excess embryos” used in embryonic stem-cell research? Unless fertility clinics are stopped from creating and storing excess embryos, the whole embryonic stem-cell debate is not a matter of whether excess embryos die, but under what circumstances.
If Obama is not worthy to speak at Notre Dame because he is not willing to say abortion is the taking of a human life, then Jews who hold to their own tradition are not worthy to speak at Notre Dame.
A president who adopted the view of the Catholic Church and attempt to base American law on it, even if he confined his efforts to abortion, would be taking and unprecedented legal stand, and not merely taking us back to pre-Roe times. The Catechism says, “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.” The ramifications for accepting that as a basis for American law are staggering.
on April 1st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
MAT:
Notre Dame is not Georgetown.
What an offensive comment. You do not help the discussion by slamming the oldest Catholic university in the nation. Your comment shows a profound ignorance of Catholic higher education today.
on April 1st, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Alan–
Actually, Mount St. Mary’s in Maryland is the oldest Catholic university in the nation, though Georgetown was the first.
on April 1st, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Mark Proska,
I see you have drunk the right wing Catholic cool-aid. Mt. St. Mary’s was founded in 1808, Georgetown, 1789.
From the Mt. St. Mary’s web site:
The nation’s second oldest Catholic university, the Mount celebrated its Bicentennial in 2008, and is now moving forward into its third century.
See for yourself:
http://www.msmary.edu/admissions/about-mount/index.html
on April 1st, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Alan: Offensive? What is offensive about the demographic reality that less than 51% of the student body of Georgetown is Catholic – down from 60% a mere 10 years ago, I should add?
on April 1st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Alan–
Everything you say is true (except I don’t drink cool-aid). However, Georgetown stopped being a Catholic university in any meaningful sense more than 20 years ago. So, if you do the math, it turns out that Mt. St. Mary’s is now the oldest Catholic university in the nation.
on April 1st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
MAT
The demographics do not make the university Catholic or not.
Mark,
Listen to yourself. Christendom College? Logic?
on April 1st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“The demographics do not make the university Catholic or not.”
Really? So you don’t need a majority of Catholic students to have a Catholic university? Go figure. You must be right – I am definitely profoundly ignorant.
on April 1st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Alan–
I doubt if I could have gotten into Christendom–it’s a pretty selective college. But getting back to Peter’s point, I agree with him that there are many things about Obama that are worthy of emulation too, but none that go all the way down. He’s been given great tools by God, and has worked hard to develop these tools. But ultimately, we admire people not for the tools they have, but for what they do with them. Obama has used his tools, at every turn, to enable the destruction of innocent human life. So, in the end, what is there to emulate? What message is ND sending to impressionable young minds by honoring him?
on April 1st, 2009 at 7:57 pm
MAT,
Enough. Shooting fish in a barrel is like betting on a sure thing in Catholic moral theology.
Mr. Nixon, I apologize for inserting this ridiculous distraction into your excellent post. I just could not let the Wilson Miscamble, CSC Notre-Dame-has-not-sold-its-soul-like-Georgetown-has argument go by unchallenged (although I wonder if he is reconsidering that now). I should have exercised more self control, but I have been imprudent for most of my life.
on April 1st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Mollie,
In all seriousness my point in making the hypotheitcal comparison is that – and I think most reasonable people would agree – There is NO WAY on God’s Green Earth that the ACLU would do that.
Of course who an institution invites says something about what its members believe. My hypothetical, while parallel, is nonsensical because we know, because of their principles, the ACLU would never do this. And if the board decided to, we know that their members would object. And no one would dream of thinking these objections were unreasonable or somehow stifled dialogue.
So what are Catholic institution’s limits? Who would they never dream of honoring? What is reasonable for Catholics to object to?
Catholic colleges and universities invite, and even honor, pro-abortion politicians because the Church’s teachings on the matter simply aren’t that important to those who govern them.
Barbara,
What “reasonable” people agree or disagree about makes no difference. I don’t “invest” anyone with personhood. God makes persons – at least that’s what Catholics believe. When I say someone is a person I’m not making him one, I am stating a fact. When you say a fetus may be destroyed by another person at will you must first posit that the fetus is not a separate person. There are no competing values, liberty or autonomy or anything else that I can think of that trumps innocent life.
You can’t be “neutral” about a fact. You can say I don’t agree it is a fact (the fetus is not a person), or I don’t know if it is a fact (you are not sure if a fetus is a person), but you can’t be neutral about whether it is or is not a fact (it doesn’t matter either way).
on April 2nd, 2009 at 8:11 am
It is still amazing how even today we confuse dialogue with approval and inquiry with apostasy. The Land of Lakes Agreement spearheaded by the great Ted Hesburgh was ever so necessary. It ensured that the search for truth in history would be open not governed by dogmatists who have lied and lied and lied about church history. It is a question of not being able to face light that governs an insular crowd.
It is amazing that the only thing that has kept the Land of Lakes agreement going is the failure of the hierarchy to achieve credibility. On this score the Catholic universities have beaten them time and time again.
http://archives.nd.edu/episodes/visitors/lol/idea.htm
Absolutely, worth another look.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
Sean,
Whether a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is or is not a “person” is matter of whether one’s definition of person includes or excludes fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses. If you accept the Church’s definition of person, then you will believe that a fertilized egg, an embryo, and a fetus are all persons. If you accept the current legal definition of person, then fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses are not persons. I don’t see this as a matter of facts, or at least not demonstrable facts.
I could raise the question of whether a virus is alive, and I could insist that it had to be one or the other. But whether or not you consider a virus to be alive is going to depend on your definition. I am not prepared to go out on a limb here and assert the following (at some point I might): even God can’t answer the question of whether a virus is alive or not.
I am not saying there are no facts. I am saying that when it comes to classifying something in one group or another, there may be no factual answer.
There are no competing values, liberty or autonomy or anything else that I can think of that trumps innocent life.
We know that if we raise certain standards — such a air-quality standards — that fewer people will die. Society puts a dollar value on human lives.
Also, there are certain situations where innocent lives are sacrificed, such as when a woman with an ectopic pregnancy has the portion of the fallopian tube removed that contains a developing fetus. I know the Church has rationales for this, but nevertheless an innocent life is sacrificed.
Innocent lives are lost in war as well.
My point is that there are many situations in which innocent life doesn’t trump everything else.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 10:14 am
The determination of whether something is a “person” is not primarily predicated on fact. It’s a legal determination often made on the basis of policy and politics. For example, corporations are “persons” for some purposes under the law, and, at present, human beings are not “persons” if they are in the nascent stages of their development. What is and is not a “person” under the law can ebb and flow with time and changes in society. I feel confident that the time will come when “person” includes all human beings from womb to tomb. There is overwhelming biological evidence, especially genotypically, that embryos and fetuses are human beings. The challenge is to change hearts and minds to recognize this biological fact.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
To answer Bill ad David, the objection to the invitation of President Obama is not that his personal views are not in perfect alignment with the Catholic Church on the personhood of the unborn, nor that he has failed to bring federal law into such alignment in his first two months in office.
The objection is that he has taken active steps, his executive order on embryonic research foremost among them, that are in direct conflict with Catholic values.
It is not necessary to articulate a comprehensive compromise policy, taking rape and incest into account, etc., in order to question whether someone who has taken such steps should be the recipient of an honorary degree from the nation’s foremost Catholic university.
And, for what seems the millionth time, President Obama is not being invited to “dialogue.” As many have made clear, if he or a surrogate were being invited to debate these issues with a pro-life commentator, there would not be an objection. He is being invited to give a commencement address and receive an honorary degree. So this talk of “confusing dialogue with approval and inquiry with apostasy” is a strawman. What “dialogue” will take place during the commencement address? What “inquiry” would happen?
on April 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
I feel confident that the time will come when “person” includes all human beings from womb to tomb. There is overwhelming biological evidence, especially genotypically, that embryos and fetuses are human beings. The challenge is to change hearts and minds to recognize this biological fact.
William,
It seems to me things could go two ways. Reproductive technology could develop to the point that “viability” ceases to have a meaning, because there will be artificial wombs in which a currently pre-viable fetus or embryo can be brought to term. So there would be little difference between an early abortion and a late one, in that any aborted baby could be saved. Couple that with fertility control that made unwanted pregnancies rare or nonexistent, and you would have an environment in which every unborn life would be wanted, and if in danger, saved.
On the other hand, we could have technology in which the scientific understanding of the mechanisms of life are so well understood that life is seen as mere chemistry. Human cloning would be possible, and the creation of human parts without creating people would also be possible. Artificial intelligence might be developed to the point where human beings begin to seem very limited. A whole host of developments could take place that devalued human beings.
And the above doesn’t even take into account the possibility of other intelligent life forms being located in the universe and what the repercussions of that might be.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
The objection is that he has taken active steps, his executive order on embryonic research foremost among them, that are in direct conflict with Catholic values.
John McG,
Or maybe he has taken some active steps that are in harmony with Catholic values, reversing policies of the Bush years, and taken other steps that are in conflict with Catholic values, and the Catholics who make the most noise are so obsessed with their own views about the politics of abortion that they are uninterested in ways in which Obama is in harmony with Catholic values.
The view of many pro-lifers, it seems to me, is that Obama is like the Wicked Witch of the West. Throw a bucket of water on him and he melts entirely, because he has no good in him whatsoever.
George Bush signed more death warrants (152) than any other elected official in history in a time when Pope John Paul II declared the death penalty to be almost never necessary. I don’t remember a big protest about him speaking at Notre Dame. He went on to start two wars that both John Paul II and Benedict denounced. It will be very difficult to determine how Obama’s policies on abortion affect the number of abortions performed in the United States or worldwide. There are still those who have hopes that he will actually reduce the number of abortions. But we know how many people Bush signed death warrants for, and we know the effects of Bush’s approval of torture and of his two wars.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
“So this talk of “confusing dialogue with approval and inquiry with apostasy” is a strawman. What “dialogue” will take place during the commencement address? What “inquiry” would happen?”
Goodness! John McG! If you are going to be so stringent, then you should condemn St Athanasius, St Augustine, sundry popes who pleaded with emperors and popes to use force on their enemies. Here is a president who has such a great record as a Christian. Yes a Christian. And his life can stand up to anyone at the Ethics and Public Policy Center most of whom increased their wealth in the W administration.
Abortion is the strawman as shown in the last election. A defeat for the bishops and the right wing of the Catholic Church. This is simply an effort to atone for the defeat. But it ends up reinforcing it.
“There is overwhelming biological evidence, especially genotypically, that embryos and fetuses are human beings. The challenge is to change hearts and minds to recognize this biological fact.”
Potential human beings, William. It cannot be proven that they are persons. Again for the umpteen time, the decibel level for the unborn, where there is doubt, is a thousand times louder than for the born who are dying daily from neglect and malnutrition. Abortion is an easy advocacy. It costs very little.
Catholic Relief Services, Unicef, Doctors without borders etc. These are the true Christians. Not one issue and very political one issue people.
I guess it is about time to close this one.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
The view of many pro-lifers, it seems to me, is that Obama is like the Wicked Witch of the West. Throw a bucket of water on him and he melts entirely, because he has no good in him whatsoever.
Again, it is not necessary to believe that Obama is the Wicked Witch of the West, or even that he is worse than Bush (which I suppose many may believe are one and the same) to question the prudence of giving him an honorary degree.
I think we should strive for leaders who support a consistent ethic of life, rather than just being better than the other guy.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 am
And, as much fun as it is to take on the hate-filled right-wing blogosphere, I think a more illuminating discourse would emerge if those supporting the invitation would engage the best arguments from the other side, such as Peter’s post that launched this thread and Rick Garrett’s, rather than what seems to you to be “the view of many pro-lifers.”
on April 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Talked to a friend back East last night who occasionally blogs here.
We easily agreed that this subject continues to be beaten to death here by many of the same folks who repeat themselves and some who take time out to bash outstanding Catholic Universities.
Unfortunately, then. we get more self justification from them.
Intelligent posts to start the thread like Peter, though I suspect we differ somewhat, though hardly a lot, get mangled by snarky coments about ND, Georgetown in particular and all who disagreewith the mavens who know better in general.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
John–
Following up (sort of) on your request to address the best arguments of the other side, I found the following from TK to be the most compelling rationale for supporting the invitation. Ultimately, however, I found it unpersuasive.
“… the African American community is singular in the percentage of women who raise children in single parent homes and who’s males are incarcerated. Obama stands as a picture to all of a man who has married and is in love with his wife and two daughters, who is an active parent in that family constellation and who is willing to call all of us, including young African Americans to a greater responsibility in family, parenting, education and contributing to society. This, in itself, seems to me to be reason to ask him to speak as President of the United States, the first African American President, to Notre Dame graduates.”
on April 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
“We easily agreed that this subject continues to be beaten to death ”
Yep.
The one part of the story that might still develop in an interesting way (at least, it would interest me) would be if the bishops manage to get organized around this and come up with a coordinated response.
In the first few days of this brouhaha, Bishop D’Arcy was more or less standing alone. Then Bishop Olmstead chipped in. Then, gradually, other voices have been heard. But still just a relative handful. It’s difficult to gauge if this situation is analogous to the communion-for-pro-choice-politicians situation, i.e. most bishops apparently want to take a moderate stance but there are a few outspoken hardliners; or if, in fact, there is an episcopal consensus forming against ND.
on April 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Okay, folks, we’ve clearly “jumped the shark” here. Let’s move on.