Bishop D’Arcy revists l’affaire Obama. (UPDATED)
In what seems to be a rejoinder to America magazine’s strong, persuasive editorial on the controversy surrounding President Obama and Notre Dame, Bishop John D’Arcy of Fort Wayne/South Bend restates his case against inviting the president to speak at commencement and awarding him an honorary doctor of laws.
At the outset it should be acknowledged that in responding to the controversy Bishop D’Arcy has not shown the same flair for the dramatic exhibited by some other bishops. (Consider Bishop Doran of Rockford, Illinois, who, after declaring Notre Dame president John Jenkins no stranger to sponsoring smut–that would be the dreaded Vagina Monologues–suggested he rename Our Lady’s University “Northwestern Indiana Humanist University,” which Doran publicly communicated through the Cardinal Newman Society.) While one might disagree with Bishop D’Arcy’s version of events, it’s tough to take much issue with the way in which he has voiced his displeasure. In other words, he’s never approached the unhinged shenanigans of some of the protesters at Notre Dame. (Speaking of, I never thought Randall Terry could jump the shark. Wow, was I wrong.)
But that doesn’t mean Bishop D’Arcy is right.
The bishop opens by claiming the controversy “is not about President Obama.” Or “Democrats versus Republicans.” Nor is it about the appropriateness of having presidents speak at Catholic universities. “Yet,” as David Gibson points out at Politics Daily, “then he goes on to say it was about those things because Obama was unfit to be honored at Notre Dame and Notre Dame was wrong to have him speak there and he, the bishop, was right to try to prevent that.”
Citing Matthew 5:13, Bishop D’Arcy asks, “Does a Catholic university have the responsibility to give witness to the Catholic faith and to the consequences of that faith by its actions and decisions–especially by a decision to confer its highest honor?” Oddly, more than once in the essay D’Arcy refers to the honorary doctor of laws Notre Dame gave to Obama as the university’s “highest honor.” Not quite. That would be the Laetare Medal, an honor Notre Dame wanted to bestow on ardent prolifer Mary Ann Glendon. She was willing to accept the award until just three weeks before commencement, when she abruptly withdrew–well after she knew the president was to join her on the dais, and after Bishop D’Arcy encouraged her to accept the honor. He doesn’t say what that would have given witness to, although he did suggest to Glendon that she “take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.” That was precisely the opportunity Fr. Jenkins took, in both his public statements before graduation and in his commencement speech, when he reiterated the university’s opposition to abortion.
Yes, Catholic universities ought to give witness to the Catholic faith. Who would disagree? But of course it’s in the how of it that disagreement arises. As we wrote in our editorial on the subject, “abortion is not only a moral issue; it is also a political problem, and politics requires prudential judgment and compromise, not just prophetic denunciation.” The church must be
on speaking terms with the human society in which it lives. It is therefore the duty of bishops especially to make an approach to people, seeking and promoting dialog with them. If truth is constantly to be accompanied by charity and understanding by love, in such salutary discussions they should present their positions in clear language, unagressively and diplomatically. Likewise they should show prudence combined with confidence, for this is what brings about union of minds by encouraging friendship.
That’s from Christus Dominus, Vatican II’s decree on the pastoral office of bishops, as cited by Archbishop Quinn in the same issue of America (possibly his own translation). Obviously the bishops do not disagree about the moral evil of abortion, Quinn argues. “But there is deep and troubled disagreement among us on the issue of how we as bishops should witness concerning this most searing and volatile issue in American public life. And this disagreement has now become a serious and increasing impediment to our ability to teach effectively in our own community and in the wider American society.”
Update: As mentioned in the comment boxes, NCR has published an important interview with Bishop Sheehan of Sante Fe. He says:
Sheehan said that in June he told his fellow bishops, “I don’t feel so badly about Obama going [to Notre Dame] because he’s our president. I said we’ve gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that don’t agree with us on everything. We got Governor Richardson to sign off on the abolition of the death penalty for New Mexico, which he was in favor of.”
(…)
“We talked to him, and we got him on board and got the support in the legislature,” Sheehan said. “But you know, he’s pro-abortion. So? It doesn’t mean we sit and wait, that we sit on the sides and not talk to him. We’ve done so much more by consultation and by building bridges in those areas. And then to make a big scene about Obama – I think a lot of the enemies of the church are delighted to see all that. And I said that I think we don’t want to isolate ourselves from the rest of America by our strong views on abortion and the other things. We need to be building bridges, not burning them.”
Asked if there were any other bishops who agreed with him, he said, “Of course, the majority.”
(…)
He said that in speaking to the other bishops he wondered aloud what was so bad about inviting Obama and giving him a degree. “Last month,” said Sheehan, “the pope made the president of France an honorary canon of St. John Lateran’s — and he [President Nicolas Sarkozy] is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, married invalidly to an actress, and the pope did that. It doesn’t seem that [the Vatican] had quite as big a concern about this matter of Obama and Notre Dame as some of us.”
Read the rest right here.
Tags: abortion, Notre Dame, Obama
on August 26th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
“…abortion is not only a moral issue, it is a political problem.”- Commonweal
Abortion is a political problem because there are some who do not see abortion as a moral issue but as a right to choose to end a Human Life.
“In some ways, this year’s commencement weekend was like no other. In others, the celebrations came off as always. Either way, Notre Dame showed that differences can be respected.”- “The Time and the Place”- Notre Dame Magazine
I, for one, take no comfort in the fact that The University of Notre Dame appears to take pride in the fact that the time and the place for respecting differences that are not grounded in The Truth to begin with, was at Our Lady’s University.
on August 26th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Nancy,
There is a huge difference between not respecting another person’s opinion and not respecting the person. People — including you and me — often make mistakes. We are still deserving of respect even when our thinking is mistaken. Bishop D’Arcy doesn’t seem to realize that.
The converse is also true– though I think Bishop D’Arcy’s opinion of Fr. Jenkins is mistaken and I don’t respect that opinion, still I am obliged to respect both him and Fr. Jenkins.
on August 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am
This has always seemed to me to be a pretty simple issue.
The administartion at Notre Dame gave Obama the degree and invited him to speak in spite not only his views but his political activities related to abortion because abortion on demand is just not that important to them.
Clearly, ND would not invite just anyone to speak at commencement. They invite people who represent something – whether it is acheivement, or wisdom, or whatever. But they wouldn’t invite, for example, Michael Vick in spite of his acheivements. I suspect many of the Commonweal community would object to them inviting Dick Cheney – a man with a far longer record of service and acheivement than the president. Why? The decision clearly takes into account the works and ideas of the person picked, and when they looked at Obama, abortion just didn’t weigh much in their thinking. If it was important to them, they wouldn’t have invited him. It’s as simple as that.
on August 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Ann, my only concern is Respect for The Truth, and we, who profess to be Catholic, know The Truth is not a matter of opinion.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Grant,
Thanks for the link to the article that mentions Randall Terry. It is bone-chilling. I would say when a person resorts to such outrageous actions such as these he/she undermines not only their credibility but also substantially weakens the substance of their arguments. Put simply, I don’t plan to invite Randall to my Labor Day barbecue.
Anthony
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Would appreciate those who know, the process of implementing and current status of Ex Corde Ecclesiae. A number of university folks & a few bishops have stated that Ex Corde Ecclesiae is basically a “draft” statement that is incomplete and does not define the relationship between a catholic university and the bishop of that diocese.
A few thoughts:
a) D’Arcy does raise an important question – see above. But, he answers the question before there is a discussion and all facts, etc. are on the table. Historically, the Land o’Lakes statement was a good process but it appears that the powers to be wanted a clearer structure and more oversight of a catholic university by the local bishop?
b) you include a link to Archbishop Quinn’s statement about various levels of discourse; levels of disagreement; and his definition of the role of teaching by a bishop. Allow me to add a link to a recent statement by Bishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe: http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishop-decries-combative-tactics-minority-us-bishops
c) in the search for truth, the role of a bishop and the role of a catholic university suggest that the process they use are different. And yet, both Sheehan and Quinn describe “teaching” as a tool of listening, empowering, dialogue. D’Arcy’s comments seem to follow a different tradition of bishop as magesterium; set boundaries & penalties; apply catholic church rules to all of society rather than seeing our catholic values/truths as a way of informing and educating the public (knowing that this is a long process; societal rules may not reflect the perfect, etc.)
d) D’Arcy seems to be too strident; defensive; and juxtaposes hierarchy vs. university in negative and weighted terms. Not sure that this is what Ex Corde Ecclesiae was intended to do. But would appreciate a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of that process/history.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:51 am
The reprise of Obama/ND is an attempt to justify one position or another on the issue of approaching not only abortion politics but also the Vagina Monolgues -issues we’ve long batted around at this site.
Bishop D”Arcy’s critique of the Notre Dame Board was unfair I thought and his notion that in the long run he won (as noted at David’s post) is self serving.
The discusion on this will remain as always as long as people insist on seeing things through the same small frame they bring to the table.
One question here is (as the bishop is right that the teaching authority of the Bishops has been weakened) is why this weakness has occurred?I thought of the lengthy and somewhat rantish piece by Eugene Kennedy on line yesterday at NCR about the hierarchy, despite its length and repetitivenes, is on atarget on their internal frustrations and problems.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Most significant is Archbishop Sheean pointing out that the majority of bishops disagree with the minority who objected to the President being honored at Notre Dame.
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/bishop-decries-combative-tactics-minority-us-bishops
D’Arcy writes: “Where will the great Catholic universities search for a guiding light in the years ahead? Will it be the Land O’Lakes Statement or Ex Corde Ecclesiae?”
Ex Corde Ecclesiae has failed principally because the witness of the hierarchy has failed. First in covering up pedophilia clergy. Now in approving (enthusiastically) dubious movements like
the Legionnaires. The real need is to put one’s house in order.
on August 27th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Abortion is a political problem because there are some who do not see abortion as a moral issue but as a right to choose to end a Human Life.
Simplistic and wrong. The proponents of abortion rights find an almost sacramental character in what they see as the principal symbol of their liberation from male oppression. Read Kristin Luker’s classic study, “Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood,” to understand this. Is motherhood a sacred calling and part of a woman’s essence? Or is it just one of many choices a woman can make with her life?
on August 27th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Bishop D’Arcy: “However, as the teacher and shepherd in this diocese, it is my responsibility to encourage all institutions, including our beloved University of Notre Dame, to give public witness to the fullness of Catholic faith. The diocesan bishop must ask whether a Catholic institution compromises its obligation to give public witness by placing prestige over truth. The bishop must be concerned that Catholic institutions do not succumb to the secular culture, making decisions that appear to many, including ordinary Catholics, as a surrender to a culture opposed to the truth about life and love.”
His question: “whether a Catholic institution compromises its obligation to give public witness by placing prestige over truth.” Did UND place prestige over truth? How? by inviting the president of the United States to commencement? The contrast seems far fetched. In many respects Truth and truth got laid on with gusto…by President Obama, President Jenkins, and Judge Noonan. I can’t think that any member of the UND class of 2009 didn’t get a credible understanding of the fullness of Catholic teaching and what it means to live and argue in a pluralistic culture.
Looking back it seems to me that everyone except the lip-flapping bishops come out fine on this… Bishop D’Arcy did what he thought his conscience and office required. Now he has offered a reflection (not wholly convincing as to outcome, but good-willed) that in some ways does continue a dialogue.
on August 27th, 2009 at 11:23 am
The ND “controversy” is straightforward enough.
Via the local Bishop, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church told a Catholic university not to invite and/or grant an honorary degree upon President Obama. The Bishop did so because of the President’s position on abortion.
The Catholic Church insists abortion is murder – in any case.
ND decided not to obey the Catholic Bishop, but ND still wants to advertise itself as a Catholic university.
It will be interesting to see how this will work out.
on August 27th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I think reading Bishop D’Arcy’s piece, along with Archbishop Quinn’s piece, gives a good picture of what the argument ended up being.
So, I think it’s good that they were published together–although I might have wished it wasn’t in the first week of school.
on August 27th, 2009 at 11:39 am
In weighing all of these approaches to this difficult problem of how to witness our faith, the example that stands out to me the most is the that of the Holy Father. The “witness of cordiality”, if it can be done without compromising the truth, seems like the proper approach for this intersection of culture and faith.
on August 27th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“Simplistic and wrong. The proponents of abortion rights find an almost sacramental character in what they see as the principal symbol of their liberation from male oppression.”
You can always tell when someone has spent too much time in the academy.
on August 27th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Witnessing to The Truth without compromise is not only the proper approach, it is in fact, the only approach, if we truly believe that their is only One Word of God to begin with.
on August 27th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
If there are a number of ways of witnessing the Truth, the question is what is most efficacious.
)Another argument reprise.)
Reading this thread makde me think of Fr. Tilley’s final address to the Catholic Theological society.
I thought Bishop darcy’s article was basically about how to exercise his perogatives as teacher and Ordinary.
I think Bishop Sheehan was courageous in coming out that this kind of approach was a minority position among US Bishops.
But the issue was authority and its exercise and is a major impasse in the US Church.
So I don’t think it continues dialogue, it continues impasse. RTalking about “winning” is precisely what dialogue is not about (except for a few self proclaimed experts here who might think otherwise.)
It does hearken back to Bernadin and Hesburgh, Common Ground and a view of how to lead effectively.
(Interesting footnote; I see Bishop Martino is moving to a retreat Center – is something afoot in Scranton?)
on August 27th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Adeodatus,
I just report the facts. That’s the underlying philosophy supporting “choice” as valid public policy. You can quibble with their argument, but there’s no need for an ad hominem response.
on August 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Ships in the night, RP and Adeodatus. Pretty sure you’re on the same cheerleading squad. Let’s stick to the subjects covered in the post.
on August 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Grant, I recognize that RP and I hold similar views regarding abortion, though I wish you wouldn’t condescendingly refer to it as a “cheerleading squad.” People might start getting the right idea.
That RP and I are both anti-choice doesn’t mean that I must share the same opinion as RP regarding the philosophical underpinnings of abortion rights supporters.
on August 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
We’re not going to rehash the entire abortion debate here. P.S. Some of my best friends were cheerleaders.
on August 27th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
“Ann, my only concern is Respect for The Truth, and we, who profess to be Catholic, know The Truth is not a matter of opinion.”
Nancy,
The Truth with a capital “T” is Jesus-God, and “the truth’ about Bishop D’Arcy and Fr. Jenkins is NOT the same thing. They are entirely different beings. So talk about “The Truth” in this discussion completely misses what the discussion is about.
You can’t persuade people, Nancy, unless you talk about the same subject.
on August 27th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Grant, GWB?
RP, I think you are giving too much credit to abortion rights proponents. I don’t think that there is any one philosophical underpinning to the rights advocates. I think the lack of a sufficient philosophical basis is what makes abortion rights a vulnerable issue. I think you are partially correct in identifying Women’s Liberation as one philosophical source in the argument for abortion supporters. But there are also philosophical connections to the eugenics movement of the early and mid 20th century as well as a general desire for social engineering. Justice Ginsburg’s interview in NY Times magazine last month touched upon that strain. “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.” Ginsburg’s view is a far cry from “I am Woman, Hear Me Roar.”
on August 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“Is motherhood a sacred calling and part of a woman’s essence? Or is it just one of many choices a woman can make with her life?”
I would answer “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second. Regardless of what a woman chooses to make with her life, she brings the essence of motherhood with her. A woman who does not bear children is still able (obligated?) to infuse that essence into her life’s work, just as men can’t not be fathers, in some essential fashion. The roles are different, but complementary. What intrigues me is why some people are offended by this diversity. For some reason they assume that difference implies hierarchy and inferiority.
on August 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
“c) in the search for truth, the role of a bishop and the role of a catholic university suggest that the process they use are different.”
Bill deH –
Indeed, this is the crux of the matter. It is why I think that the Church desperately needs a theological epistemology — a deep understanding of how the Church can legitimately go about *finding* the truths it is supposed to teach. Uncritical appeal to past authorities (especially the Early Fathers) seems to be the preferred method of recent popes and their administrations. But in the past reasoning was a privilege method, and today there are toes who would bring in the insights of the historical method, of linguistics and psychology and any of the sciences that can help interpret Scripture and Tradition. (Not to mention philosophy :)
Too many bishops seem to think that repeating what was said by earlier bishops in different words is all they need to do to be competent bishoops.
What has to go, it seems to me, is the assumption of many that somehow the HOt Spirit just whispers the truth into the ears of the popes and bishops — that He lets them know in this
on August 27th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
” The “witness of cordiality”, if it can be done without compromising the truth, seems like the proper approach for this intersection of culture and faith.
Jim P. –
Your phrase “without compromising the truth” is the key to resolving this apparent dilemma.. Had the Notre Dame officials said or even just implied that they agreed with Obama about abortion they would have compromised the current teaching of the Church. But they didn’t. In fact, they also were goingto bestow an even greater honor on Prof. Glendon.
To use a philosophical term, you might say the ND officials “bracketed” Obama’s views on abortion (by making clear they disagreed), and they honored him for his sterling qualities that exemplify other teachings of Jesus.
Some might say that such an honor does compromise the truth. and I ask, how???
on August 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
1. The unbridgeable logical gap in the quoted editorial is here:
But who says that in order to be “on speaking terms” or to have “dialog” it is necessary to bestow honors on someone?
2. Honorary degrees are a scam. Moreover, irrespective of the abortion issue, church institutions ought to think very carefully before fawning over politicians. Kind of like the elephant bowing in obeisance to the flea.
on August 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Maybe Mrs. S can chime in here, re honorary degrees for politicians. Is it true that there was some behind the scenes discussion between the Archbishop and Fr. McShane regarding Fordham’s bestowing an honorary degree to Mayor Bloomberg at this year’s commencement?
on August 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“I think that the Church desperately needs a theological epistemology — a deep understanding of how the Church can legitimately go about *finding* the truths it is supposed to teach. Uncritical appeal to past authorities (especially the Early Fathers) seems to be the preferred method of recent popes and their administrations. But in the past reasoning was a privilege method, and today there are toes who would bring in the insights of the historical method, of linguistics and psychology and any of the sciences that can help interpret Scripture and Tradition. (Not to mention philosophy :)”
Hi, Ann, perhaps this is inherent in the tension that must exist in the term “Catholic University”. Christianity by its very nature is concerned with the category of truth termed Revelation – a category that, perhaps, is not held in high regard in the modern culture of the academy, and that indeed seems be “bracketed out” by the scientific method. Yet revelation is specifically that category of truth that it is the bishop’s charge to safeguard.
Another notion that comes into play, istm, is the concept of the university as a hothouse for social change. Every underpinning of culture seems to be called into question – perhaps even treated with the hermeneutic of suspicion. Again, this seems to conflict directly with the notion of the church, and specifically the bishops, as the guardians of a deposit of faith which is at once complete and not subject to revision, but only further elaboration and unpacking.
on August 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“Your phrase “without compromising the truth” is the key to resolving this apparent dilemma.. Had the Notre Dame officials said or even just implied that they agreed with Obama about abortion they would have compromised the current teaching of the Church. But they didn’t. ”
Hi, Ann, it occurs to me that another form of witness that could be a valuable resource and model is the witness of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, in which we are called to share our faith, and also to listen attentively, showing great respect for our dialogue partners without “negotiating down” the truths that are important to us.
on August 27th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Fine analogy, Jim P.
on August 27th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
D’Arcy’s second question about the role and relevance of Bishops not only in the life of the University, but also in the life of individual believers seems most interesting to me. D’Arcy also seems to suggest that it was his lack of involvement/being kept in the loop about the Obama/ND decision that was most frustrating. These questions of ecclesiology are I think extremely important.
As a critical question to D’Arcy, though, I wonder if he was consulted about giving George W. Bush an honorary degree? If he wasn’t, did he feel duly slighted that he wasn’t able to discuss W.’s failure to support the “fullness of truth” on issues like the death penalty and the Iraq War (both of which the Vatican opposes)? I think that the single-minded often politically-driven focus on abortion undermines the prophetic credibility of the Bishops in America.
on August 27th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Given that Bush’s honorary degree was given in May 2001, and given that the Iraq War didn’t start until nearly two years after that date, one can hardly blame the bishops for failing to oppose Bush’s degree on that basis. To be sure, you are literally correct that this failure of foresight undermines their “prophetic” credibility.
on August 27th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“Moreover, irrespective of the abortion issue, church institutions ought to think very carefully before fawning over politicians. Kind of like the elephant bowing in obeisance to the flea.”
Stuart, the hierarchy has been fawning over politiicians for 1700 years. Benedict is certainly fawning over the French president. So how is this news to you?
on August 27th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Studebaker, Thanks for the correction regarding Iraq. I did not know the date of Bush’s receiving the degree. As for their failure of foresight, I wouldn’t necessarily hold that against them either. Though, as you suggest, it depends on what kind of prophecy we’re talking about. All cheekiness aside, Gregory the Great, in his homilies on Ezekiel, differentiates 3 tenses of prophesy and says that the future tense (the Nostradamus kind) should not be priviledged over the other two – the present (MLK kind) or past (recognizing the fulfillment of past prophetic statements in the present – like Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth of Bethany). I was intending the MLK kind, and I think the point still stands with regard to the death penalty and certainly as regards the present attempts bishops make at prophetic interventions in American politics.
Going back to D’Arcy’s article, I have an anecdotal comment on the priviledging of prestige over truth. I attended the all-school mass at ND this past Tuesday celebrating the beginning of the term. Fr. Jenkins gave an excellent homily that struck me as, in part, aimed at putting past controversies behind us as a university community. He ecouraged the students, staff, faculty, and friends present to remain united and empowered in the pursuit of Truth by the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised and sent as our guide. Something, I think D’Arcy would have been pleased to hear. After the distribution of the Eucharist, the Provost (a lay person) took the podium to offer words of welcome to the students. He kind of lost me right off the bat by celebrating the American system of higher education, and the priviledged place it gives to “private, select universities” which “set the standard” for all the others. As a public school kid through grade-school, the son of a public school teacher, and with a sister who attended the University of Tennessee (who is both smarter and more ambitious than I), I bristled at this unreflective celebration of prestige. But then I thought maybe he was going to make the turn to talk about how this tradition of private education allows for faith-based institutions (like ND) and that it this that makes the real difference in the kind of educational opportunity ND freshmen have ahead of them. While acknowledging the fact that the American system does allow for faith-based institutions that can have public celebrations of mass, like the one we were having, he went on to talk about how the disproportionate number of leaders come from private schools like Harvard, Stanford, and ND, and with no reference to God, the church, or the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he suggested that it was because of the elite educational opportunities these institutions provided that leaders were formed. There was no reference to the economic factors that might account for such a disproportion, no passing acknowledgement of a not-so-distant blue-blooded past. It was just the simple assertion that elite universities produce elite people and that as ND students at a prestigious university the freshman should have high expectations of themselves as well.
So, while I have nothing to support any claim about the university and its administration as a whole, I at least have a pretty good idea of where the provost stands and, more importantly and alarmingly, where he wants to place the student body’s self-perception.
on August 27th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Bill, your response is completely illogical. Saying that something is wrong doesn’t indicate any lack of knowledge that it’s happened before.
on August 27th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I suppose, Stuart. Yet the nuance is that you, as a champion of orthodoxy which has always fawned over politicians, have very little tradition if you depart from that view. Or put it another way, you are in a lonely corner with that view. Finally, the crowd that objected the most to Obama at Notre Dame are fawning all over Republican politicians.
on August 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Ann, just to clarify, the unalienable Right to Life is endowed to all Mankind from God, not Caesar, for it is God who created Man to begin with.
That being said, it appears that Bishop Sheehan was not present at the Bishop’s spring General Assembly, or perhaps he simply was not paying attention:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-144.shtml
on August 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I fail to see any necessary connection between “orthodoxy” and fawning over politicians. In any event, aren’t you always beating the drum of how the Catholic Church has been corrupted by politics ever since Constantine, or something like that? It must indeed be a lonely corner over there, if you insist on attacking anyone who even hints at joining you.
on August 27th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
“I think the single minded often politically driven focus on abortion undermines the prophetic credibility of the Bishops in America.”
Prophetic credibility? You mean as in the obvious, that without the protection of a Person’s Right to Life to begin with, there will be no other Rights?
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Do you know what executive session means, Nancy?
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
I know what a dialogue is, and what happened at Notre Dame regarding the issue of abortion was a monalogue not a dialogue.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Now Obama is going to preach at a Catholic basilica at a Catholic Mass for Ted’s funeral. Will they say that he is not being honored. So one can preach or eulogize but not receive a honorary law degree.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Nancy,
The person to complain to about the monogue is Prof. Glendon, who failed to present the other side.
on August 27th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Nancy,
Last time I checked we had a lot of rights (protected by Law even!) despite the Government’s pro-choice position on Abortion. If you can give me an Argument that those rights are not real or validly upheld because Abortion is allowed, I might be conviced.
on August 27th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
“The person to complain to about the monogue is Prof. Glendon, who failed to present the other side.”
Despite Fr. Jenkins’s attempt to make Prof. Glendon a scapegoat, the burden was not hers to bear. Does Notre Dame really need to ship in a guest from Harvard to present the Church’s side? I am certain there are plenty of people at Our Lady’s University who could have delivered a beautiful response, including Fr. Jenkins himself. Additionally, as Prof. Glendon explained, a graduation “is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision…”.
on August 28th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Tell me, MAT, how did Jenkins attempt to “make Prof. Glendon a scapegoat”? She accepted the invitation. And was content to receive it for quite some time after learning who would deliver the commencement address. It wasn’t until three short weeks before graduation day that she had an attack of conscience. Bishop D’Arcy asked her to accept the award and to use the opportunity to teach. She passed.
Did you bother to read anything Jenkins said before or during commencement?
on August 28th, 2009 at 2:10 am
“Tell me, MAT, how did Jenkins attempt to “make Prof. Glendon a scapegoat”? She accepted the invitation.”
Fr. Jenkins bait-and-switched her. Prof. Glendon accepted the Laetare Medal, not an invitation to participate in a debate about the USCCB’s “Catholics in Political Life” or the CCC. Do you have evidence that Fr. Jenkins gave Prof. Glendon some sort of prior notice that her acceptance speech was to address those topics as well as act as a rebuttal to the President’s speech? According to the Professor she learned of Notre Dame’s “talking points” (her words, not mine) after the invitation was issued and not from Notre Dame representatives directly, but from a third-party. If you have evidence to the contrary, then I stand corrected.
“And was content to receive it for quite some time after learning who would deliver the commencement address. It wasn’t until three short weeks before graduation day that she had an attack of conscience.”
She was not content actually – in fact, she wrote that “[o]ver the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.” Nor did she have an attack of conscience. Prof. Glendon outlined three of these factors which occurred subsequent to her acceptance of the Medal that culminated over time in her decision to decline the award.
“Bishop D’Arcy asked her to accept the award and to use the opportunity to teach. She passed.”
That may be true but that has nothing to do with her being bait-and-switched by Fr. Jenkins.
“Did you bother to read anything Jenkins said before or during commencement?”
To the extent there was a written account of it, yes. What is the connection between my reading habits and Fr. Jenkins trying to use Prof. Glendon to take the heat off himself?
on August 28th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Adeodatus, to most abortion-rights supporters, Margaret Sanger and eugenics are a red herring.
Mark, you are one of a large number on one side of that question, while there is another large number on the other side of the question. And many who disagree with you bristle at the idea that you, as a male, would dare to say that a woman who rejects motherhood “brings the essence of motherhood with her.”
As to the Notre Dame question — I have a master’s degree from ND — I am quite sure that Bill Clinton, the one recent president who did not receive an honorary doctorate, was shunned precisely because of his stand on abortion. Obama, the extraordinary trailblazer, cannot be dismissed as quickly, especially with the rash decision to give George the Lesser a degree.
on August 28th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Also, remember that Obama has talked about reducing abortions, in a way that Clinton did not.
Finally, what makes me bristle is the assertion that abortion is The Only Issue That Matters.
on August 28th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Just out of curiosity, this was before my time at ND–but why is everyone so sure that Clinton wasn’t invited to speak at ND was there a public announcement to that effect? Is it possible that he didn’t accept?
on August 28th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I was at Notre Dame, employed from ‘87 to ‘96 and earned a master’s there in ‘93. Clinton was the first graduate of a Catholic college to become president. The haste with which George the Greater got his honorary degree — and especially George the Lesser — were honored, when compared with the eight-year snub of Clinton, didn’t pass the smell test to a lot of us. But you do raise a good point: maybe Clinton didn’t accept an honor from a place to which he had no direct connection in a state he had no chance of carrying.
on August 28th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I see, MAT. You’ve decided to accept the least charitable interpretation of Jenkins’s motives, apparently without direct evidence that supports it, and when you are challenged, you shift the burden of proof to your challenger. That’s one way to argue.
We went over Glendon’s letter on this blog. It seems to me that the professor did not handle it well. Releasing the letter to First Things before, or at least at the same time, as she contacted the university? The “talking points” explanation was specious precisely because it was Bishop D’Arcy who asked her to use the opportunity to address abortion. Likewise, the “graduation ought to be a joyous occasion” explanation did not persuade. Did Glendon really believe the students couldn’t listen to contrasting views on one issue, and presumably consonant ones on several others, without harming their happiness? And, finally, her strong statement about disregarding the bishops’ “settled” opinion in their statement–obviously, as this post shows, the matter is not settled–delivered with the apparent assumption that the document speaks for itself, struck me as too clever by half. If she held that strong, almost fundamentalist view of USCCB statements, why wait until three weeks before commencement?
Incidentally, before you go pronouncing on the events of that day, especially if you’re going to imply that the church’s teaching against abortion was not articulated, you ought to read the speeches delivered at commencement–Obama’s, Jenkins’s, and Noonan’s (or was he a scapegoat too?).
on August 28th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Re: Mary Ann Glendon. No, she wasn’t asked to engage in a debate, but as an ardent pro-lifer you would think she would overcome her pique and rise to the challenge, given the opportunity presented by the forum itself and the added incentive of having the president as a member of a captive audience, which is probably not something Ms. Glendon can hope for again, ever.
Opportunity and circumstance are rarely bargained for. They happen and you make the most of them. I still don’t understand what on earth her reasons for backing out were.
on August 28th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Eric, the point I was trying to make is that the fundamental Right for every individual Person upon which the Rights of each individual Person depend is the Right to Life which is an unalienable Right because it is endowed to each one of us from our Creator.
on August 28th, 2009 at 10:11 am
That paragraph of Christus Dominus begins
Cum Ecclesiae sit cum humana societate, in qua vivit, ad colloquium venire…
Quinn’s translation begins
The Church has to be on speaking terms with the human society in which it lives…
The vatican.va translation has
Since it is the mission of the Church to converse with the human society in which it lives…
I would be interested in knowing whether the Latin of this phrase, which is obviously a pivot point of the argument, carries the conciliatory note that Quinn’s translation makes.
on August 28th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Kathy, that being said, I have no doubt that the University of Notre Dame, through the guidance of Father Jenkins and the inspiration of The Holy Spirit has the ability to be a strong Witness to the Truth.
on August 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
“I see, MAT. You’ve decided to accept the least charitable interpretation of Jenkins’s motives, apparently without direct evidence that supports it, and when you are challenged, you shift the burden of proof to your challenger. That’s one way to argue. ”
He pulled a bait-and-switch. That is a fact. What is the charitable interpretation of a bait-and-switch? The least charitable interpretation, by the way, is that he did so out of malice, which I did not say.
“We went over Glendon’s letter on this blog.”
That’s my whole point. You want to make it about Prof. Glendon. That is a red-herring. The buck stops with Fr. Jenkins.
“It seems to me that the professor did not handle it well.”
That sentiment is exactly why what Prof. Glendon did was so brilliant. She understood that once politics was injected into the equation, she would be used as a proxy in the ongoing war against President George W. Bush. She had two options – be criticized for boycotting or give a talk and have herself and her family savaged as a surrogate in a partisan political war. Knowing she was dealt a lose-lose hand, she analyzed the cost-benefits of the two choices and wisely – and inexplicably to some – chose the former.
“Incidentally, before you go pronouncing on the events of that day, especially if you’re going to imply that the church’s teaching against abortion was not articulated, you ought to read the speeches delivered at commencement–Obama’s, Jenkins’s, and Noonan’s (or was he a scapegoat too?).”
I did not pronounce on the events of the day – I was responding to a comment by Ann Oliver who said: “The person to complain to about the monologue is Prof. Glendon, who failed to present the other side.” My response was that the person to complain to – IF one wanted to complain – and I personally do NOT want to complain, is Fr. Jenkins, not Prof. Glendon. What I do want to do is defend Prof. Glendon from specious criticism. She is a pawn in this chess game and injecting her into it is unfair to her.
And yes I read the speeches of Fr. Jenkins and Judge Noonan. That was my point to Ann – that those speeches are in fact considered by some to represent the “other side” so I don’t see why Prof. Glendon is being thrown under the bus.
on August 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
A fact? I’m afraid not, MAT. A bait and switch is defined by an intention to deceive. It’s a form of fraud. How do you think you know Jenkins intended to trick Glendon? What makes you think he had Obama confirmed as the commencement speaker when she was asked if she’d accept the university’s highest honor? And if she felt deceived, why did she wait so long to pull out? I don’t know what “the buck stops with Fr. Jenkins” is supposed to mean. Yes, he invited her. Yes, she accepted, learned of Obama’s honorary degree, planned to attend commencement for many weeks before she abruptly withdrew. That was her decision. And it was made against the advice of Bishop D’Arcy–who asked her to talk about abortion (or was that injecting politics?). That buck stops with her.
As for your speculation about an “ongoing war with President Bush,” along with the odd notion that her family would be savaged for her role in the event, that seems to me the very definition of specious criticism, if not paranoid.
on August 28th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Nancy, actually I’m kinda thinking that Archbishop Quinn is weighting the translation a bit towards compromise.
on August 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Kathy, I agree. A strong Witness would be a Witness to The Truth without compromise. If you compromise you no longer would be Witnessing to The Truth.
on August 28th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I’m so glad that Nancy knows more about what went on on the insid eat the bishop’s meeting than Bishop Sheehan!
The voices of moderation (if my bishop is correct) will always try to be dumbed down by the voices of non-moderation (extremism.)These non-moderates know better and don’t know how to deal with things other than their own way -an enclave faith that talks to itself.
on August 28th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Moderation does not mean following a culture straight down to hell. It means leading, as peaceably as possible.
on August 28th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
RP Burke:
To many people (don’t count me among them), “abortion is The Only Issue That Matters.”
However, once the fetus is born, well — let ‘em eat cake. And for God’s sake, don’t make health insurance easy and affordable for them to get. We all know that “those people” abuse whatever they get their hands on, especially if it is “free.”