Judge Noonan to deliver Notre Dame Laetare address
But he won’t receive the prestigious medal, as he already has it.
Instead the federal judge (appointed by Reagan) and author of several excellent books, especially his Newman-esque treatise on the development of doctrine, “A Church that Can and Cannot Change,” will “deliver an address in the spirit of the award,” which will not be given this year.
Here is the announcement from Notre Dame:
Judge John T. Noonan Jr., the 1984 recipient of the Laetare Medal, has accepted an invitation to deliver an address in the spirit of the award at Notre Dame’s 164th University Commencement Ceremony on May 17. His speech will be in lieu of awarding the medal this year.
“In thinking about who could bring a compelling voice, a passion for dialogue, great intellectual stature, and a deep commitment to Catholic values to the speaking role of the Laetare Medalist – especially in these unusual circumstances – it quickly became clear that an ideal choice is Judge Noonan,” said Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., president of Notre Dame. “This commencement ceremony, more than anything else, is a celebration of our students and their families. Judge Noonan will join with President Obama and other speakers in that celebration, sending them from our campus and into the world with sound advice and affirmation.
“Since Judge Noonan is a previous winner of the Laetare Medal, we have decided, upon reflection, to not award the medal this year.” Noonan was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan.
In addition to his service on the federal bench, Noonan has been a consultant for the Presidential Commission on Population, the National Institutes of Health, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the American Law Institute.
Noonan has served as a consultant for several agencies in the Catholic Church, including Pope Paul VI’s Commission on Problems of the Family, and the U.S. Catholic Conference’s committees on moral values, law and public policy, law and life issues, and social development and world peace. He also has been a governor of the Canon Law Society of America, and director of the National Right to Life Committee.
A pretty brilliant choice, IMHO.
on April 30th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I wonder what those who supported Glendon’s refusal to speak at the commencement, and for the reasons she gave, will think of this. He is not even being given an award, but it is clear he will be there as a pro-life voice. Is it wrong? Or will some people change their mind now?
on April 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I believe that Ambassador Glendon’s withdrawal was a principled one, and that Judge Noonan’s acceptance is likewise a principled one. I await with anticipation the remarks of the President and the Judge.
Do I detect the hand of CK at work here?
on April 30th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Wow. In the pantheon of favors given, this one is right up there. If Judge Noonan can’t bring home a medal, maybe Fr. Jenkins could at least host a breakfast for him. On the menu could be Fr. Jenkins’ bacon – the same that Judge Noonan has just saved.
That the artwork on the side of the library is being rechristened “Touchdown Noonan” is, I am convinced, purely coincidental.
I do question the award decision. If a Nobel Prize can be given twice to the same person, then istm the Laetare could, too. I’m sure Judge Noonan’s career since 1984 is richly deserving of a second honor.
The university might consider this: a cynic, or a pro-life activist, might note that, as things stand, pro-choice President Obama is thought to be worthy of an award from the university, but apparently faithful Catholic Judge Noonan isn’t. If they can’t re-award the Laetare, then at the very least they could slap together another honorary degree.
on April 30th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I don’t think it is clear what his role will be there. How long will he speak? How long will Obama speak? What proximity will their speeches have to one another? Will they address what each other is going to say? Will they address each other’s points on abortion? Will they just celebrate graduates and their families? There’s no indication of what this “dialogue” will mean, but there never has been any suggestion that dialogue here is real rather than being a media soundbyte, an excuse for a decision that has really been about prestige and about thinking that abortion and the bishops policies against it arent really very important. That at least would have been an honest answer. The goals of true dialogue are actually undermined when “dialogue” is used as a public relations defense instead of an accurate and tangible goal. Using the word as an empty smokescreen just cheapens it further, so that whenever “dialogue” is mentioned people will more likely think it is a diversion or even a subversion, rather than a true project.
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I think:-we should listen to what people have to say instead of all this apriori getting het up about what will they say.
-As to dialogue, it may be an overused term. But it doesn’t help to set up straw men when discussing it either. As we’ve talked about her ea number of times, it’s a complex term and depends much on who is involved and the issues at stake.
It will be interesting to see what the joint task force on reducing abortions the President has formed will come up with. I hope we won’t get a lot of prejudgements pro or con about the outcome.
I do note that the Common Ground initiative put aside “toxic” issues for dialogue, probably because we’d just keep gettingfolks stuck in position.
But we do have to move ahead on toxic issues and the results may not always be fully pleasing to each of us. Obvously that will mean a process with perhaps more mutual respect that some folks think should not be allowed here.
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Good for Judge Noonan. He is gracious to step in. It is a welcome common ground move; a true conservative of the old school and the authentic school.
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I just Pray it will be a dialogue and not a monalogue.
That being said, regarding the issue of abortion, I do believe that Father Jenkins is sincere about bringing dialogue to this issue because I know he believes in protecting the Sanctity of Human Life from the beginning.
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Jason,
Do you really want Notre Dame to sponsor a debate on abortion between Obama and John T. Noonan? If so, perhaps the graduating class could act as judges, and the honorary law degree Obama was going to get would go to Noonan instead if he is judged the winner.
Presumably the debate should not focus on the morality of abortion, but on the question of legality. Judge Noonan has written at least two books on abortion, and he has been very active in pro-life circles. Does anyone know what his position is on how the law ought to deal with abortion?
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Ooh I like that contest idea.
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Judge Noonan, at his talk about his book at the U. of San Francisco last month, did not bring up or were there any questions about abortion. He explained how the Church changed it’s positions over time about usury, slavery, religious freedom and the efficacy of democracy. When I asked about a possible change on the prohibition of contraception… over time ‘we shall see’
[I looked at both our many decades 'not in his or my time'... unspoken]
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:51 am
An elegant choice avoiding the awkardness of a second chioce candidate for the medal and yet preserving the address itself. John Noonan is in himself an excellent choice. Like all good conservatives he is a revolutionary.
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
David, my guess is the debate will occur after the Graduation. After all, for the graduates, as for all of us, Notre Dame is “not their final destination”.
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Actually, it wouldn’t have to be a debate. I remember a sketch on Monty Python’s Flying Circus in which the existence of God was determined by a wrestling match between a bishop and an atheist. I just found the script:
I won’t reproduce the rest but — **SPOILER ALERT** — the bishop wins.
on April 30th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Correction: monsignor, not bishop.
on April 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Another lawyer. Oh goody gumdrops!
“And he said, “Woe also to you scholars of the law! You impose on people burdens hard to carry, but you yourselves do not lift one finger to touch them”. Luke 11:46
“But he knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste and house will fall against house”. Luke 11:17:
Do you really believe it is possible to compromise on the killing of babies? To reduce the killing step-by-step?
on April 30th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Maybe I’m confused, but isn’t this like giving Marlon Brando another Oscar for his performance in the Godfather? This is brilliant? What’s the point? Political cover?
on April 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Do you really believe it is possible to compromise on the killing of babies? To reduce the killing step-by-step?
Gabriel,
There must be no compromise. There must be a total ban on all abortions, including in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother. Don’t settle for anything less than that, ever.
Now, someone did say the following:
But he wasn’t even in the American pro-life movement.
on April 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Mr. Austin,
I assume you were also upset with the choice of Mary Ann Glendon, since she too is a lawyer.
And how, exactly, do you intend to change the law of the land without lawyers and former lawyers?
You ask, “Do you really believe it is possible to compromise on the killing of babies? To reduce the killing step-by-step?” Do you really believe it is possible to stop the killing all at once? How?
One may be unwilling to compromise on a principle but willing to compromise, at least provisionally, on a law or a policy. In the case of abortion, I think a blanket refusal to compromise on policy is a kind of irrresponsibility: If we cannot save all the unborn all at once, then we will save none of them. Is that really your line?
on April 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Thank you, Matthew Boudway. Well and concisely put.
on April 30th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
This is, of course, one of the Great Debates within the pro-life movement: do we settle for half a loaf?
Cardinal Bernardin, I’m told, initially earned the enmity of hard-core pro-lifers back in the 1980s (possibly even 1970s) through his willingness to work for legislation that would limit but not completely ban abortion. I believe this accounts in part for the subsequent skepticism with which conservatives greeted the Seamless Garment notion and the Common Ground Initiative.
on April 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
It is not a big question for Catholics: Pope John Paul said we can work for incremental legislation. Nothing recently has said to the contrary, and the Vatican’s own dealing with the world suggest this policy continues.
on April 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Quite right, Henry. It’s a useful reminder that the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement aren’t interchangeable.
on April 30th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Gabriel, do you think that Judge Noonan has worked to protect the Unborn by beginning with the truth, that every Human Life begins at Conception?
on April 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Mr. Pauwels,
What you call the “great debate” in the prolife movement mirrors many other political debates — for example, the one between some social democrats and some democratic socialists, who refuse meliorative social reforms because they prop up capitalism and so delay its inevitable self-destruction. Another example: the debate going on today between those who insist we implement a universal health-care system all at once, and those who think that we should begin by offering government health-care insurance to those who need or want it, in the expectation that people will gradually move from private to public insurance once they see how it works. In all three instances, the argument is animated partly by a difference of temperament. Why, some ask, should truth have to wait for error to catch up? Why shouldn’t rationality determine what is politically possible? Why settle for a half-measure before you are absolutely sure that you can’t have everything now? In the case of the prolife movement, there is another problem. Many prolifers confuse personal purity, moral or intellectual, with political wisdom. The martyrs didn’t compromise, did they? So why should we? But the aim of the prolife movement — as a movement — is not to be martyred, or even to be right. The point is, or should be, to reform abortion law and reduce the number of abortions. Knowing what we want isn’t enough, and congratulating ourselves for wanting the right thing is self-indulgent.
on April 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
The aim of the Prolife movement is to protect Life.
on April 30th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Speaking of compromise on the issue of abortion, I saw this recent article at Beliefnet by the editor-in-chief (think I mentioned it before?) – Safe, Legal & Early — A New Way of Thinking About Abortion. I don’t think people should compromise their beliefs but maybe it’s ok to compromise on measures if the consequence is saving lives that otherwisw wouldn’t be saved.
on April 30th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
It seems to me that we should be careful to distinguish dialogue and debate. In a debate both sides are prepared to presenst and defend their theses and to criticize the opponent’s position. The notion that ND’s commencement ought to be a debate is really not at issue, or should not be
It also seems to me that the civilized gestures of two sincere opponents appearing together on the same public stage could easily be the begining of a dialogue. Obama and Noonan might not *say* what their positions on abortion and the law are, but their presence together will *show* good will, will *show* that though everyone knows they disagree, there is respect each for the other. Even the Pope has not refused to meet with proponents of abortion. Sigh.
Judge Noonan seems like a great choice to me too. Professor Glendon is a disappointment.. It is the function of a professor to profess, not to run from disputes, or even from dialogue, or even from the beginning of a dialogue.
on April 30th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Ann Olivier, a very good point that needed to be made, re dialogue. This debate devolved into an issue of “debate” and/or “dialogue,” but really these events are an opportunity to create openings, points of futurte contact, to hear views on toics of especial concern that are not given much play. E.g., Bush came and announced his faith-based program at ND.
As I write this I realize that many of the same critics of ND and Obama were also champions of Benedict’s Regenburg address as an example of “dialogue.” If they are willing to stretch that concept so far as to accomodate the pope in that dubious context, you’d think they could expand it a bit to include Obama at Notre Dame.
Above all, I think these events are symbolic, with the substance being the signal that UND and Catholics are part of the give and take of American society–American conversation–and not BJU and isolationist fundamentalists.
on April 30th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
David Gibson –
Very good point about the President and bishops discussing important issues that are not getting enough attention.
During the 2008 election process Obama was the only of those running to raise the issue of the remaining atomic bombs that are still maintained by the nuclear powers. That fact was one of the main reasons I voted for him. Those bombs are the single greatest threat to peace. Consider what could happen if some are captured by terrorists or if they are not maintained properly. Just last week we saw the Taliban get within 70 miles of the capitol of Pakistan. Should they succeed in gaining control of any of Pakistan’s bombs, New York should shudder in fear. Such a bomb can be fit into a vam. amd given the terrorist network it is posssible tht New York might be blown to smithereens the whold world would feel the consequences if only because it is the financial capitol of the world. And cities closer to Pakistan (or Russia, or Korea. . . ) could also be in peril of total devastation.
Obama *still* raises this issue occasionally — but the bishops never do! Surely, if some dialogue could get going among them on this subject the world might become a bit safer. But if I were Obama at this point I’d be highly insulted by the ravings of some of the Catholic bishops and by the silence of the others.
on April 30th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
David Gibson –
Very good point about the President and bishops discussing important issues that are not getting enough attention.
During the 2008 election process Obama was the only of those running to raise the issue of the remaining atomic bombs that are still maintained by the nuclear powers. That fact was one of the main reasons I voted for him. Those bombs are the single greatest threat to peace. Consider what could happen if some are captured by terrorists or if they are not maintained properly. Just last week we saw the Taliban get within 70 miles of the capitol of Pakistan. Should they succeed in gaining control of any of Pakistan’s bombs, New York should shudder in fear. Such a bomb can be fit into a vam. amd given the terrorist network it is posssible tht New York might be blown to smithereens the whold world would feel the consequences if only because it is the financial capitol of the world. And cities closer to Pakistan (or Russia, or Korea. . . ) could also be in peril of total devastation.
Obama *still* raises this issue occasionally — but the bishops never do! Surely, if some dialogue could get going among them on this subject the world might become a bit safer. But if I were Obama at this point I’d be highly insulted by the ravings of some of the Catholic bishops and by the silence of the others.
on April 30th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
David Gibson –
Very good point about the President and bishops discussing important issues that are not getting enough attention.
During the 2008 election process Obama was the only of those running to raise the issue of the remaining atomic bombs that are still maintained by the nuclear powers. That fact was one of the main reasons I voted for him. Those bombs are the single greatest threat to peace. Consider what could happen if some are captured by terrorists or if they are not maintained properly. Just last week we saw the Taliban get within 70 miles of the capitol of Pakistan. Should they succeed in gaining control of any of Pakistan’s bombs, New York should shudder in fear. Such a bomb can be fit into a vam. amd given the terrorist network it is posssible tht New York might be blown to smithereens the whold world would feel the consequences if only because it is the financial capitol of the world. And cities closer to Pakistan (or Russia, or Korea. . . ) could also be in peril of total devastation.
Obama *still* raises this issue occasionally — but the bishops never do! Surely, if some dialogue could get going among them on this subject the world might become a bit safer. But if I were Obama at this point I’d be highly insulted by the ravings of some of the Catholic bishops and by the silence of the others.
on April 30th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Sorry about those duplicates. I’ve had computer problems lately.
on May 1st, 2009 at 8:47 am
“Ann Olivier, a very good point that needed to be made, re dialogue. This debate devolved into an issue of “debate” and/or “dialogue,” but really these events are an opportunity to create openings, points of futurte contact, to hear views on toics of especial concern that are not given much play. E.g., Bush came and announced his faith-based program at ND. ”
David and Ann, just want to say that I third your motion. I continue to hope that good comes of the President’s appearance. Apposite citing of the Regensburg speech, David. Look at what has come out of that.
on May 1st, 2009 at 8:51 am
“But the aim of the prolife movement — as a movement — is not to be martyred, or even to be right. The point is, or should be, to reform abortion law and reduce the number of abortions. Knowing what we want isn’t enough, and congratulating ourselves for wanting the right thing is self-indulgent.”
Yes, I agree, Mr. Boudway.
Now I am off to learn the distinction between “social democrats” and “democratic socialists” :-)
on May 1st, 2009 at 9:25 am
Ann raises a very good point about the dangers of nuclear proliferation, including concerns about nuclear material and weapons getting in the hands of terrorists. She rightly highlights the extremely worrisome situation in Pakistan.
However, I’m not sure it’s correct to say that the bishops never speak out about nuclear armament issues. The USCCB website has links to documents issued by the bishops on this topic, including a link to a letter sent last month by Bishop Hubbard, as the chair of the USCCB’s Committee on Int’l Justice and Peace, to Secretary of State Clinton expressing the bishops’ support for the new Administrations’ efforts to create a nuclear-free world:
“On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I welcome the Administration’s
recent commitments to seek reductions in the number of nuclear weapons and to advance nuclear non-proliferation with an ultimate goal of seeking a nuclear-free world. Our Conference supports President Barack Obama’s announcements to secure loose nuclear material, strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, push for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and negotiate a follow-up to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.”
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/nuclear.shtml
Certainly, more needs to be done, and word about the USCCB’s efforts in this area needs to be disseminated better at the people-in-the-pew level.
on May 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am
The aim of the ProLife Movement is to protect the Foundations of Principles upon which this Nation was founded, the Truths that are self-evident, that all Men are CREATED equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, the fundamental Right to Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness being dependent on The Right to Life from the beginning.
on May 1st, 2009 at 10:26 am
In the Toledo Blade, Prof. Richard Gaillardetz argues the Bishops of the US would be better off spending their (diminishing) political capital working in collaboration with the administration, where it can, and follow the lead of the Vatican in that view.
The continuing debate (and I think it is such) on Obama at ND shows that dialogue is not part of what happens around the topic of abortion – it’s been suggested there is a “theolgical McCarthyism” by the hard right to life groups such as Randall Terry’s.
I think there are many moderates here on both sides of the issue, but the more strident right to lifers think they must have their way or no way and they inspire a certain amount of fear, backed by again a (minority) group of Bishops “at war.”
This divide underscores the issue Jim mentioned about Bernadin -as we know, it was then Bishop Law (who still weilds loads of power in his resigned Roman seat) who opposed him as he opposed Doyle on sex abuse questions.
Consequently, common ground dialogue has become increasingly difficult over the years.
Hope for dialogue in the future will only be possible (if as pointed out) we move from debate (and the debate techniques we frequently enough see on this blog) to real respectful discussion.
on May 1st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
In order to create a “moderate” view on abortion, you would have to change the Principle Foundation on which this Nation was formed to:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that SOME men are created equal, that SOME are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…
That changes everything.