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 dont feel so badly about Obama going [to Notre Dame] because hes our president. I said weve gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that dont 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, hes pro-abortion. So? It doesnt mean we sit and wait, that we sit on the sides and not talk to him. Weve 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 dont 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 Laterans -- and he [President Nicolas Sarkozy] is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, married invalidly to an actress, and the pope did that. It doesnt 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.